Goodmorning everyone,

So we all agree that the prices don't help. Hell, see Stickydion's post somewhere on page 3 if you want an account on why sales are slower.

What if the Stones would have used a different stage and didn't call the tour A Bigger Bang? Then would you guys regard the 2007 Tour a succes?

The attendance of ABB as a whole is enormous. The attendance of The Rolling Stones Live in Europe 207 just isn't.

regards, Maarten

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well of course they are selling less tickets on
> this leg of the tour due to saturation imo, but
> imo it is a temporary saturation. In other words
> they have toured extensively since 94' with high
> ticket prices. I didn't mean saturation in the
> sense that the world was forever tired of The
> Stones.
>
> If they were a younger band then the ticket sales
> problem would disappear if they were to go away
> for awhile and then come back. If they didn't tour
> for eight to ten years they would be in high
> demand again and ticket sales would be at the max
> again.
>
> Of course this is what would happen if they were
> younger. Now if they wait that long they would in
> their mid seventees.

I totally agree with this.

> My main point is that it
> isn't a huge embarrassment if every stadium isn't
> packed due to all the circumstances (frequent
> touring, high prices, The Police and Genesis
> beating them to the punch this time etc. etc.).

Is it a huge embarrassment or not? Well, for the Stones it is at least a difficult situation IF THEY EVER PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this scale. To overcome this saturation, they will have to stay away from touring for a couple of years to create demand again. If they don't - and start another world tour in just two or three years -, the saturation problem will be much worser next time around. On the other hand, considering their age, I can't see them taking a four or five years break and start again on THIS scale. IF THEY DON'T PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this scale they could not care less about the current saturation problem.

> That was my main point. Of course they could have
> forseen that on this leg sales might start to
> slide and they could have cut the prices but they
> chose not too.

Well in certain markets like Germany ticket prices were indeed lowered after initial slow sales. In Frankfurt they even gave thousands of tickets away for free. And if you showed up at the entrance without a ticket, you were in for free too. And this has indeed pissed off quite some people who bought their tickets early at their original (high) prices!

Im going to make some assumptions here,
The boys are playing big stadiums to reach a big number of people (base fans + casual fans) (we colud think this based on the setlits, and no, dont want to convert this in a setrlist moan, just the fact discuss here ad nauseam that playing 9 of 18 warhorses to content (and atract) casual fans that only want to see and sing that songs, and not some obscure number).

So what we have? to reach that casual fans you have to play 40K to 80K depending on the city. But trying to reach that casual fans over and over again (i mean, the casual fan can return home and say, it was a good act, and i enjoy, i saw sataisfaction!!!!, i will think abaout it next time they hit my city) based on such prices (the casual fan see the prices and said, after all i saw them 2 years ago, and i listened all "the good ones", and i dont know what means ABB or BTB, musically, and i dont know what is sway, or how is ronnie playing this year, or ... so i will save my 100 € for another thing, because i already saw them)...

The point is , with this prices and touring times, they are losing the casual fan market (come on, we, i mean iorreans will go (well maybe not, but most of you) because we care about sway (this could be called the "waiting for ventilator blues tour), about how is ronie playing and about the health of Mr Richards, etc).
The causal fan market is almost exahusted in some countries (germany iguess?), and probably if they tour in the next two years, it will be more. The question to Jagger/Cohl is half-empty stadiums (till a solid ground attendance), or arenas & theaters shows, with all the crazy situations (camping at the doors, scalpers, etc)?

After all if they are doing big bucks and thats all they care, probably the bis stadiums fade out its a good option, if not, they will have to reconsider strategies...

Greetings!

retired_dog wrote:


FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? Attendance has decreased as the tour has
> went on? You have yourself a scoop there but what
> does it mean? Obviously as a tour drags on and you
> visit the same areas over and over again the
> attendance will decrease- especially with high
> ticket prices. It doesn't take Einstein to figure
> this out.

And it does not take Einstein to figure out that Rome is not exactly an area that has been visited "over and over" recently!"

Yes, but Rome never had been very friendly to the Stones. I repeat, in 1990 the band played twice at 25,000 capacity Flamino Stadium and these shows weren't close to sellout, as italian friends have said here. If the Stones attracted 40,000 in 1990 and in 2007 they are playing in front of 35,000- 40,000, where exactly this "disaster" is? Also don't forget that the band visited Milano last year. And in 2003, too. Italian fans have said one million times here that in Italy the Stones fanbase isn't very big, which does make the prices for Rome's gig much more exasparating, of course...

Actually, Frank's observation is absolutely right. Look at the big picture. In North America the Stones performed in packed venues on the first and second tour's legs. They had some problems during fall leg, playing in the same areas or cities even for fifth (!) time. But even so on this "difficult" and "problematic" leg they attracted 650,000 people, with successful visits in a few new markets (Regina, Halifax, etc).

In Europe: Portugal- 49,000 in 2006 + 30,000 in 2007. France- 62,000 in 2006 + 75,000 in 2007. Denmark 85,000 in 2006 + (let's suppose) 30,000 -35,000 in 2007. Norway 20,000 in 2006 + 40,000 in 2007. London- 100,000 in 2006 + 60,000 in 2007.
So, if you do consider as "poor result" attracting during a year 79,000 in Portugal, 137,000 in France, 115,000 or 120,000 in Denmark, 60,000 in Norway and 160,000 in London, with these frustrating prices and after having visited these countries in 2003, then the only thing i could say is "my friend retired-dog i appreciate your humour"...

PS: Well, if a stadium has been formed (stage on the long side, "all seated", etc) in order to reducing it's capacity at 45,000- 50,000, then a 35,000 - 40,000 crowd doesn't exactly mean "half empty stadium"...

mr edward wrote:

"The attendance of ABB as a whole is enormous. The attendance of The Rolling Stones Live in Europe 207 just isn't."

Your statement is right on both legs. But attracting (in 2007) one more million people approximately, having 33,000 - 36,000 as average figure per show, it is not enormous of course, but also i couln't call it "failure"...

If only we Americans could be the ones who are attending the shows in the European stadiums.

Our bodies are wider. We could make those stadiums look full without forcing the Stones to sell more tickets.

retired-dog wrote:

"IF THEY EVER PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this scale. To overcome this saturation, they will have to stay away from touring for a couple of years to create demand again. If they don't - and start another world tour in just two or three years -, the saturation problem will be much worser next time around. On the other hand, considering their age, I can't see them taking a four or five years break and start again on THIS scale."

Right, their age doesn't permit it. In addition, their age inflicts FEWER GIGS. Longer breaks and "breaths" between them. But they have options, if they want to start another tour in two or three years: Visiting "virgin" aereas, like Regina or Halifax in 2006. There are many of them. Visiting countries where the saturation problem isn't serious or it doesn't exist (Greece, Croatia, etc). Doing fewer gigs in "traditional" markets. And charging normal prices, of course.

Adding some kind of new twist could fill seats the next time around.

Some ideas, most of them far-fetched:

- Bring back Bill Wyman
- Bring back Mick Taylor (but keep Ronnie; just split the set up into pre-1975 and post-1975)
- Do a combo Stones/Faces tour (keep Ronnie very busy for the night)
- Do a combo Stones/New Barbarians tour (keep Ronnie and Keith very busy for the night)
- Do a combo Stones/Stevie tour (1972 all over again)
- Do a combo Stones/Macca + Ringo/Dylan tour
- Do a 40th anniversary Rolling Stones Rock 'n' Roll Circus celebration (Stones, Who, Jethro Tull, Taj Mahal and Yoko)

Monkeylad Wrote:

> - Do a 40th anniversary Rolling Stones Rock 'n'
> Roll Circus celebration (Stones, Who, Jethro Tull,
> Taj Mahal and Yoko)

Please! No Yoko!

Fingernails on a chalkboard, yes, but no Yoko!

Monkeylad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Adding some kind of new twist could fill seats the
> next time around.
>
> Some ideas, most of them far-fetched:
>
> - Bring back Bill Wyman
> - Bring back Mick Taylor (but keep Ronnie; just
> split the set up into pre-1975 and post-1975)
> - Do a combo Stones/Faces tour (keep Ronnie very
> busy for the night)
> - Do a combo Stones/New Barbarians tour (keep
> Ronnie and Keith very busy for the night)
> - Do a combo Stones/Stevie tour (1972 all over
> again)
> - Do a combo Stones/Macca + Ringo/Dylan tour
> - Do a 40th anniversary Rolling Stones Rock 'n'
> Roll Circus celebration (Stones, Who, Jethro Tull,
> Taj Mahal and Yoko)

lol, good one, i just would suggest one small change: instead of splitting up the set into pre/post 1975 replace Blondie with MT

Monkeylad, IMO the only things the Stones need now are normal prices and a managment that woulb be able to see the obvious. And for sure a managment that doesn't announce tour's dates with the lateness of 2007, that doesn't select Tuesday (!) as the day of the opening gig when this show takes place in the middle of nowhere, etc, etc.

That's what they need. I don't think they need Mick Taylor nor Brian's big picture on stage...

stickydion Wrote:
.
> Look at the big picture. In North America the
> Stones performed in packed venues on the first and
> second tour's legs. They had some problems during
> fall leg, playing in the same areas or cities even
> for fifth (!) time. But even so on this
> "difficult" and "problematic" leg they attracted
> 650,000 people, with successful visits in a few
> new markets (Regina, Halifax, etc).
>


In quite a few of those cities, a LOT of tickets were sold at slashed prices and as part of special offers ($22 a ticket in a couple of cities)

retired-dog basically hits the nail on the head here

"for.the Stones it is at least a difficult situation IF THEY EVER PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this scale. To overcome this saturation, they will have to stay away from touring for a couple of years to create demand again. If they don't - and start another world tour in just two or three years -, the saturation problem will be much worser next time around. On the other hand, considering their age, I can't see them taking a four or five years break and start again on THIS scale. IF THEY DON'T PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this scale they could not care less about the current saturation problem. "

A summary which basically reconfirms my personal belief that this current tour will be their last one as we know it.

The Stones get their money if the Stadium is full or half full. The only one this effects is Cohl and is there anyone here that gives a flip if he isn't quite turning as much of a profit as he could? Do you know for sure whether lower prices and more seats sold would make Cohl more money? I think he is smart enought figure out the optimum. The man is ruthless but not stupid.

Don't put all the blame on Cohl. He is certainly a key player in this current situation, but not the only one. Jagger is brilliant and knows what he does. Myself being a staunch fervent of Stadiums vs Arenas, do I want to see Jagger running at the age of 68-70 in a Stadium. Probably, no.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. So far the Stones have played 12 shows to 477.000 people. That's 39.500 per f*cking show!!!!!!

How can that be a fiasco on any scale?????????????????

firebird Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Monkeylad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Adding some kind of new twist could fill seats
> the
> > next time around.
> >
> > Some ideas, most of them far-fetched:
> >
> > - Bring back Bill Wyman
> > - Bring back Mick Taylor (but keep Ronnie; just
> > split the set up into pre-1975 and post-1975)
> > - Do a combo Stones/Faces tour (keep Ronnie
> very
> > busy for the night)
> > - Do a combo Stones/New Barbarians tour (keep
> > Ronnie and Keith very busy for the night)
> > - Do a combo Stones/Stevie tour (1972 all over
> > again)
> > - Do a combo Stones/Macca + Ringo/Dylan tour
> > - Do a 40th anniversary Rolling Stones Rock 'n'
> > Roll Circus celebration (Stones, Who, Jethro
> Tull,
> > Taj Mahal and Yoko)
>
> lol, good one, i just would suggest one small
> change: instead of splitting up the set into
> pre/post 1975 replace Blondie with MT

Yeah put Mick Taylor behind the stage playing. See if anybody notices.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

The pursuit of happiness just seems a bore

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know what all the fuss is about. So far
> the Stones have played 12 shows to 477.000 people.
> That's 39.500 per f*cking show!!!!!!
>
> How can that be a fiasco on any
> scale?????????????????

It can't!
But this is what always happens with great successes. A lot of experts pops up to tell you what you're doing wrong!

And facts just won't affect them. Why should it? They are the experts, they'll always know better!

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know what all the fuss is about. So far
> the Stones have played 12 shows to 477.000 people.
> That's 39.500 per f*cking show!!!!!!
>
> How can that be a fiasco on any
> scale?????????????????

That's pretty damn good attendance!
The Stones get paid their going rate no matter what, whether there are 10,000 or 80,000 fans in attendance...the Stones get their contracted rate.

The more tickets sold only means more money in the pockets of the promoters and venue managers...who cares if promoters & venue managers make more money?
I sure don't.

This is their second swing through Europe during this tour so perhaps they have satisfied the overall market demands already. Similar occurences during the second North American tour leg.

But let me tell you...if the Stones are quiet and reclusive for a few years but then decide to do a short tour in small arenas in 2010 or thereabouts, then you will probably see quickly sold out venues. Then the thread subjects will change to "Boo hoo I can't get a ticket" and "Why don't they play big stadiums anymore?"
lol




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 22:10 by NumberOneStonesFan.

Gazza wrote:

(A) "In quite a few of those cities, a LOT of tickets were sold at slashed prices and as part of special offers ($22 a ticket in a couple of cities)"

So in quite a few of those cities special offers were the counterbalance to the frustrating prices. IMO there is only one problem with special offers: Not fair enough tactics, as the big majority of the audiences have already bought the expensive "regular" tickets. Otherwise, i'm the last one here who will say that only people who can afford the high prices, or just to accept them, deserve to see the Stones.

( "retired-dog basically hits the nail on the head here... '"for.the Stones it is at least a difficult situation IF THEY EVER PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this scale. To overcome this saturation, they will have to stay away from touring for a couple of years to create demand again. If they don't - and start another world tour in just two or three years -, the saturation problem will be much worser next time around. On the other hand, considering their age, I can't see them taking a four or five years break and start again on THIS scale. IF THEY DON'T PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this scale they could not care less about the current saturation problem. "

As you have seen, i basically agree on this. I disagree with retired- dog as for his opinions about the "reputation of the Stones", etc, but that's another story.

mofur wrote:

"I don't know what all the fuss is about. So far the Stones have played 12 shows to 477.000 people. That's 39.500 per f*cking show!!!!!!

How can that be a fiasco on any scale?????????????????"


It can't, of course. And noone considers that as "fiasco", except some "all time whining" fans here. Fortunately, as i already said, out there there are "normal people"...

Although my conservative estimates say that so far the attendance is a bit lower than what you mentioned (maybe 420,000 approximately), your observation is absolutely right.

The most funny thing, Mofur, is the following: Now some fans say "i don't care about attendances, i see empty seats." But if the Stones, in the future,
are to doing a shorter tour, playing fewer gigs and selling out fast, then i'm sure that some of the same guys will say: "I don't care about the whole meaningless selling out thing, where are these glorious attendances of four and five million of people worldwide? Now they do just one gig in Spain, as the Police did in 2007- do you remember? What a shame... Bad for their reputation... Blah, blah, blah"

"Mama we're all crazy now" (Slade)...

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> So in quite a few of those cities special offers
> were the counterbalance to the frustrating prices.
> IMO there is only one problem with special offers:
> Not fair enough tactics, as the big majority of
> the audiences have already bought the expensive
> "regular" tickets.

Depending on how many were sold in the initial sale, it could be that the majority paid the lower price. It could also be in the future that concert tickets are much like airline tickets, how much you pay depends on when you buy the ticket.

I think it's very fair as it's adjusting the price to meet the market. When people buy a ticket far in advance, which is rarely necessary these days, often they are doing it for their own sense of security and you can't really put cash value on that.

But prices are only lowered in extreme circumstances. Promotors don't like to do it because it conditions consumers to wait for the prices to come down rather than buy the tickets immedietly.

Similar to US Major League Baseball where some teams draw large crowds consistently while others don't. The teams marketers then come up with "2 for 1" ticket deals and other promotions/discounts just to lure crowds in through the door to spend $7 for a hot dog, beer or soda. $5 a ticket and then $75 for food and drink.
It's all about the bottom line.

I beleive it's called capitalism.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Although my conservative estimates say that so far
> the attendance is a bit lower than what you
> mentioned (maybe 420,000 approximately), your
> observation is absolutely right.
>
I just added up the numbers in the review section as I believe they are showing the attendance not the capacity? ;-)

But even at 420.000 that is still 35.000 a show!! I'd say that is pretty impressive as they're battling against Police and Genesis and whonot on an already saturated market.

If the Stones had played to 420.000 (477.000) people in 12 concerts in Europe in say 1976 - I think it would have been marked up as a huge, giganormous success. 31 years later these figures are seen as a disaster??

As for the "whiners" I wholeheartedly agree. For every move the Stones make there are always some people who know better. I'm always amazed that the Stones have managed to survive without taking heed of all this free advice.;-)

When the going gets weird, the weird turns pro

Any pictures of empty stadiumsections?

..... they should raise the prices.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> retired-dog basically hits the nail on the head
> here
>
> "for.the Stones it is at least a difficult
> situation IF THEY EVER PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this
> scale. To overcome this saturation, they will have
> to stay away from touring for a couple of years to
> create demand again. If they don't - and start
> another world tour in just two or three years -,
> the saturation problem will be much worser next
> time around. On the other hand, considering their
> age, I can't see them taking a four or five years
> break and start again on THIS scale. IF THEY DON'T
> PLAN TO TOUR AGAIN on this scale they could not
> care less about the current saturation problem. "
>
> A summary which basically reconfirms my personal
> belief that this current tour will be their last
> one as we know it.


Yes, that's the bottom line - your personal belief is also mine.


In addition to that - in order to overcome the current saturation it needs more than just considering the time factor. I honestly don't believe that staying away from touring for three, four or five years alone will overcome the current situation. They will have to re-invent themselves as a current act, as a creative force again. They need at least one, better two new really strong albums to make people curious again and thereby create the desire to see them again. When I hear around and listen to people who did not go this time the ticket price factor is more often than not only one -albeit strong - factor for not going. It's this "seen it all before many times - basically same show since 1989" impression as well.

Monkeylad was quite creative with his "some ideas - most of them far-fetched"! But, seriously, bringing back Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor (in addition to Ronnie and Keith to guarantee the ultimate three-guitar onslaught...) would get a lot of people out of their seats to buy tickets...

Quite frankly, I have my doubts. I my 40 years as a Stones fan, I never counted my favourite band off. Not when Brian Jones was fired, not when Mick Taylor left and not in the 80's when the Jagger-Richards relationship reached an all time low. In the past, it always seemed that for the Stones, only the sky was the limit. Now, for the first time in their history, it seems that they they have reached their limit.

Then again, it's the Stones. There's always this somewhat metaphysical hope that they'll surprise us once more. My brain says no, but....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-09 06:02 by retired_dog.

I think this will definitely be their last globe hopping tour. Charlie doesn't want to do it anymore and it will take too long to get rid of the saturation effect (unless they want to cut prices). By that time they will be too old to have a major world tour anyway.

This isn't neccessarily bad news. They have had their giant record breaking tours and really don't need another one. A plausible scenario for them would be another studio album and some smaller tours here and there. Even with their current saturation problem they would have no problem selling out a couple nights at MSG and other arenas around the country.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-09 06:57 by FrankM.

"I just added up the numbers in the review section as I believe they are showing the attendance not the capacity? ;-) "

No official figures have been reported. If they show up in Pollstar Magazine, I will post them.