melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah but it still helps the old ego to see as many
> people as possible right?


It sure does, but its quite evident that more money as opposed to more people is more important to the old ego these days...

s-asla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Empty stadiums on current tour indicates that they
> have to do another tour (arena, my guess) to
> compensate for the loss of income.


You don´t seem to know that the Stones themselves
never have any loss of income. They get their money from Cohl - anyway!

Cohl got his money from the local promotors. Even the promotors in
Germany, Italy, Spain etc. make a bit of profit though the shows are far
from a sell-out (due to perverted ticket proces). So money-wise it´s "OK".

The only loss caused is the damage of reputation for the Stones
as a band. The headlines are bad, they leave the business as a band
that does not "sell out anymore". That´s even worse than losing money.

>
> It depends also on which side you look at things :
> half bottle full , half bottle empty.

If the bottle is half empty, go get another one. If the bottle is half full......uh............well...............go get another one.

By the time you get to the bottom of the bottle, maybe you'll see that people are tired of this crap about the Stone's not selling tickets.

>> The headlines are bad <<

are they really? i've seen a good many headlines with words like "triumphant" in them.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> melillo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yeah but it still helps the old ego to see as
> many
> > people as possible right?
>
>
> It sure does, but its quite evident that more
> money as opposed to more people is more important
> to the old ego these days...

I think that sold out shows at reasonable prices (say 130 Euro FOS, 90 Euro all other areas) would have made them more money. Just look at the attendence: 40000-45000 in rome (capacity of 80000). Frankfurt 28000 out of 45000 possible. It's not only the ticket prices, it's also the drinks and the merchandising that suffers from lower attendence. Plus they loose the young generation that simply cannot afford the tickets and will not buy stones stuff in future.
But i agree with you that that might have been the plan (i said that a while before and i remember Dr. economy PHD bashing me heavily for it) but i also think it would work out only at higher selling rates like 75 to 80 percent of the capacity.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> The headlines are bad <<
>
> are they really? i've seen a good many headlines
> with words like "triumphant" in them.

I think he's referring to the bad headlines specifically about less than full venues....and in fairness there HAS been a lot of that in the last year or so.

How much of a big deal that is is of course a matter of opinion and perspective.

The band and Cohl dont seem to think it is, or the shows would have been promoted and marketed a lot better than they have been and prices would have been pegged.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 17:08 by Gazza.

firebird Wrote:
> I think that sold out shows at reasonable prices
> (say 130 Euro FOS, 90 Euro all other areas) would
> have made them more money. Just look at the
> attendence: 40000-45000 in rome (capacity of
> 80000).


Frankfurt 28000 out of 45000 possible.
> It's not only the ticket prices, it's also the
> drinks and the merchandising that suffers from
> lower attendence. Plus they loose the young
> generation that simply cannot afford the tickets
> and will not buy stones stuff in future.
> But i agree with you that that might have been the
> plan (i said that a while before and i remember
> Dr. economy PHD bashing me heavily for it) but i
> also think it would work out only at higher
> selling rates like 75 to 80 percent of the
> capacity.



Rome holds 80,000 for football...considerably less for a seated concert, but you make a lot of good points. Some of the promotional and marketing decisions post-Fiji have been bizarre at best and damaging at worst.

It's happening with the guys touring in europe , elton john , the who , some shows have been cancelled and many empty seats for the stones too.
Something happebns

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> he did <<
>
> ... if you've got links to these interviews i'd
> love to see them.
> and if he was ever literally *worried* about it,
> he's had nigh on two years to get used to to the
> fact
> that they aren't selling out stadiums night after
> night on this tour. and they've been doing fine
> anyway.


I could search through my videos and find it , but trust me he said it, he didnt say he was worried but he said we have to fill bloody football stadiums, which implies concern imho

>> I could search through my videos and find it <<

that would be great, thanks!
but even if it was a real "concern" of his at some point, and not merely something he said,
wouldn't you reckon these past two years have reassured him that no, they don't *have* to
sell out stadiums night after night?

TooTough Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The only loss caused is the damage of reputation
> for the Stones
> as a band. The headlines are bad, they leave the
> business as a band
> that does not "sell out anymore". That´s even
> worse than losing money.

Exactly. I can't see why people think this leg of the tour is doing fine regarding ticket sales. Many tickets unsold. Is that good? The image damage is considerable. Lots of fiends of mine now tell me they should quit because people are caring less and less. And they're too expensive.

Half the tickets sold on an opening night? Come on!

mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TooTough Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The only loss caused is the damage of
> reputation
> > for the Stones
> > as a band. The headlines are bad, they leave
> the
> > business as a band
> > that does not "sell out anymore". That´s even
> > worse than losing money.
>
> Exactly. I can't see why people think this leg of
> the tour is doing fine regarding ticket sales.
> Many tickets unsold. Is that good? The image
> damage is considerable. Lots of fiends of mine now
> tell me they should quit because people are caring
> less and less. And they're too expensive.
>
> Half the tickets sold on an opening night? Come
> on!


No that's exactly what I meant in my previous post when I asked "really...think twice!".

Cohl misread the market. Ticket prices too high. Odd though Mick is usually buisness savy. Clearly Money was #1 factor superseding reputation for sell out crowds. Hey maybe we'd make the same decision? Some others posts make sense to me they'd probably actually made out better, with lower prices, but sell outs, even soley from a money standpoint; plus their reputation would of still been top notch, with complete sold out stadiums. Cohl you screwed up! but Mick should of vetoed or had final say. But hey whatever, its all good but better without Cohls dumb calls! MEZ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 20:58 by James Lynn.

firebird Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > melillo Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > yeah but it still helps the old ego to see as
> > many
> > > people as possible right?
> >
> >
> > It sure does, but its quite evident that more
> > money as opposed to more people is more
> important
> > to the old ego these days...
>
> I think that sold out shows at reasonable prices
> (say 130 Euro FOS, 90 Euro all other areas) would
> have made them more money. Just look at the
> attendence: 40000-45000 in rome (capacity of
> 80000). Frankfurt 28000 out of 45000 possible.
> It's not only the ticket prices, it's also the
> drinks and the merchandising that suffers from
> lower attendence. Plus they loose the young
> generation that simply cannot afford the tickets
> and will not buy stones stuff in future.
> But i agree with you that that might have been the
> plan (i said that a while before and i remember
> Dr. economy PHD bashing me heavily for it) but i
> also think it would work out only at higher
> selling rates like 75 to 80 percent of the
> capacity.


If it was me, I sincerely apologize. Will they ever regain the young generation ? Doubt it even if the prices are significantly lower. If Start Me Up was released today, would it reach #1 place in the charts. May be a booster could have come from a free concert in the UK or Germany as enviseonned sometimes ago in Rome ( 2006 ?). Maybe Jagger's brilliant intelligence is trusted by the North American musical model. Anyway, this european leg has just started. Northern, Eastern countries and Ireland might bring nice surprises.

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>. Anyway, this european leg
> has just started. Northern, Eastern countries and
> Ireland might bring nice surprises.

well, the Irish show sold out in two or three hours, so thats THAT one taken care of!

James Lynn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cohl misread the market. Ticket prices too high.
>

He seems to have done the same for the Streisand tour as well. Over-estimating the public's gullibility and stupidity...

WilcoMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gstone Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And when did 40.000 people in a stadium
> classify
> > fr the use of @empty stadium@?
>
> Well if the stadium can hold 70.000 like in Rome,
> 40.000 is rather disappointing and does look
> empty.
>
> Wilco


Well, they closed half the stadium which means 35.000 max.
The same like in Germany. Sorry to say that but NO OTHER ARTIST
at the moment can top this.

i agree that the prices were a miscalculation, but (unfortunately for me!) probably not that severe a miscalculation,
given that sold-out stadiums truly don't seem to be what they were looking for on this tour, especially this leg.
someone mentioned the only-half-sold opening night - exactly! if they'd wanted a sell-out show,
they certainly would've had more wit than to schedule it on an awkward weeknight in the middle of a field
way the hell out of convenient reach with no transporation back in sight.

whether or not it's damaging to what people here feel their aims should be is a different question.

i wish the Rolling Stones were my local pub band. but they're not.

rknuth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WilcoMick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > gstone Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > And when did 40.000 people in a stadium
> > classify
> > > fr the use of @empty stadium@?
> >
> > Well if the stadium can hold 70.000 like in
> Rome,
> > 40.000 is rather disappointing and does look
> > empty.
> >
> > Wilco
>
>
> Well, they closed half the stadium which means
> 35.000 max.
> The same like in Germany. Sorry to say that but NO
> OTHER ARTIST
> at the moment can top this.


Not so sure of that :

20th July Milan - San Siro, Sold Out
Support Act: Feeder/Ash
21st July Milan - San Siro, Sold Out
Support Act: Ash/Feeder
23rd July Rome - Olympic Stadium, Sold Out
Support Act: Ash/Feeder

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i agree that the prices were a miscalculation, but
> (unfortunately for me!) probably not that severe a
> miscalculation,
> given that sold-out stadiums truly don't seem to
> be what they were looking for on this tour,
> especially this leg.
> someone mentioned the only-half-sold opening night
> - exactly! if they'd wanted a sell-out show,
> they certainly would've had more wit than to
> schedule it on an awkward weeknight in the middle
> of a field
> way the hell out of convenient reach with no
> transporation back in sight.
>
> whether or not it's damaging to what people here
> feel their aims should be is a different question.
>
>
> i wish the Rolling Stones were my local pub band.
> but they're not.


That making money is the sole aim for touring with such prices is not the question. Still, the sales are not good, there's no denying that.

It harms their reputation. And their reputation/image needs some serious attention, as far as I'm concerned.

TooTough wrote:

"The only loss caused is the damage of reputation for the Stones
as a band. The headlines are bad, they leave the business as a band
that does not "sell out anymore". That´s even worse than losing money."

That's a completely pointless statement as for a band that attracts 4,500,000 people worldwide, despite these annoying prices. They leave the business (now or two years from now- who knows?) as the THE MOST ATTENDED LIVE ACT IN THE PLANET and that's great for their reputation. Actually, they draw much more people than they did during seventies, if you haven't notice this...

Every band's reputation, i mean as live act, depends on two figures in addition to the quality of the performances which is the most important factor, of course. Attendance and gross. Unfortunately gross comes first today in the music industry: gross and attendance,. In this order. The Stones know it of course, even that's no resaon to justify the prices. The Stones are #1 in both terms and you are sniveling all the time here...

Tell me, TooTough... Who the hell considers Springsteen's tour in 2003 as an unsuccessful round, with the argument that he soldout only 47 from 82 gigs? The important thing was that Bruce played then in front of 2,804,169 people. Who the hell said "The RHCP 2003 tour was a disaster as they had only 14 out of 57 sellouts"? Noone, of course. Who the hell said the same for Metallica who sold out only two out 20 gigs? Noone. Do you know why? Because the most important figure is attendance. On Licks Tour the Stones had 69 selouts out of 115 shows. So what? They attracted 3,470,945 people...

This childish if not stupid "theory" about how serious factor selling out is, takes no account of some really serious factors, like: frequency of tours in the last years, venues (big or smaller), number of gigs the band did in the same country during the same tour.

By this rediculous logic, my little brother's band that sold out twice a small ball room is more successfull than the Stones attracting 145,000 people in Spain doing gis which weren't sell out! By this logic, if the Stones were doing just one spanish gig selling out Barcelona's or Madrid's stadium and playing to 55,000, then they would do more successful job than attracting 145,000 people in this country!

BTW, in 1990 in Rome the Stones played twice Flamino Stadium (capacity 25,000) and the shows weren't near to sellout. I suppose their reputation is "dead" since then...

Gimme a @#$%& break...

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every band's reputation, i mean as live act,
> depends on two figures in addition to the quality
> of the performances which is the most important
> factor, of course. Attendance and gross.

Says who?

I don't meet that much music lovers who care how much money a band makes. Perhaps only in a negative sense: "So the Stones are THAT rich and still charge that much?!"

First of all some people need to get out the old Websters and look up the definition of "empty". If a stadium is half full it is far from being empty but then again these newspapers have to have some headline so of course they are going to exaggerate things.

Even if the stadiums are half empty what does it really mean? If you are playing a small theater with four thousand seats it may be embarrassing but if you have 40,000 in a 80,000 seat venue is it really an embarrassment? 40,000 would fill Yankee Stadium to eighty percent capacity. A lot of people. Can't some people get it through their thick noggins? Forty thousand people is two sold out arena shows. Would it be embarrassing if they sold out two arena shows instead of one half sold out stadium show? No, then the papers would be applauding them for selling out two shows BUT IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF PEOPLE FOR PETE'S SAKE. It's still forty thousand people paying high prices to see them now matter now you slice it.

To the guy that thought their reputation is being seriously damaged well that's just a bunch of nonsense. This is the last leg of a record breaking tour and it's not like they are selling only ten thousand seats in these giant stadiums. If their reputation is damaged then I guess the reputation of The Who is even worse along with Babs, George Michael, Elton John and everyone else since no one is selling out at high ticket prices.

FrankM's opinion is perfect.
As i've said , its not only the stones , something happens with ALL big concerts in europe.
The stones arent in problems , the music market has something weird this year.

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

What nonsense? The current leg isn't not a succes, compared to the Stones during Licks. They were the hottest band in town, tickets sold fast. Take Holland, compare Licks with ABB. Everyone my age (in my twenties) thinks the 2006-07 prices are jokes. They can pay half and see Pearl Jam.

Not selling out concerts and beeing boed for ridiculous prices isn't exactly doin their reputation any good. At least not by younger people.

Im younger guy , im 13 and the stones are the MOST important for me .
Many guys here dont like them but they have repect for them and when i tell them about copacabana , and when i tell they play in olymnpic stadiums and they play with 50,000 people , they say wow! , also the number of songs they have done.
The stones arent losing reputation , they are still called their satanic majesties , people love them , dont be bad with them , their are RockNrOll Gods!

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What nonsense? The current leg isn't not a succes,
> compared to the Stones during Licks. They were the
> hottest band in town, tickets sold fast. Take
> Holland, compare Licks with ABB. Everyone my age
> (in my twenties) thinks the 2006-07 prices are
> jokes. They can pay half and see Pearl Jam.
>
> Not selling out concerts and beeing boed for
> ridiculous prices isn't exactly doin their
> reputation any good. At least not by younger
> people.


A bunch of nonsense. So the current leg isn't as strong as the previous ones but that's natural to some degree. If you keep touring and visiting the same place over and over again of course you are going to saturate the market. The high prices certainly don't help the situation.

They were the hottest band in town during Licks? Funny I thought this was the record breaking tour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 21:26 by FrankM.

mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
"ridiculous prices"

I thank you for calling things their right names.
I have tried to put that right for three years soon.
Also people with uncertain invomes in their 40s
find the prices ridiculuous.
A rich white man's act. Alas.

Filet Mignon costs more than ground chuck. You get what you pay for. That's not to say the prices have to be this high but you are going to pay more for the top acts.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They were the hottest band in town during Licks?
> Funny I thought this was the record breaking tour.


Not where I live.

4 sold out stadium concerts in Holland during Licks (plus 1 arena and 1 club)

1 concert in 2006: not sold out.
1 concert in 2007: not sold out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 21:36 by mr edward.