Don't worry about the Stones losing money, it's the promoters who are at risk

retired_dog Wrote:
> 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.

Well, it is my personal belief that they did deliver a very strong album back in 2005 ("A Bigger Bang" anyone?) but that there is no real market for them. Radio does not really back the oldtimers anymore - McCartney has the same problem.

Without radio no hits. I do not claim to know, however, which song from ABB could have been the big single - maybe none of them? And they do not help their own case by chosing to hardly play any new songs at concerts.

Still - they have probably shifted at least 2-3 million units worldwide - probably more (I don'think you can take the poor sales in the US as an indicator for anything - USA is not their strongest market albumwise anymore).

And it's funny how you measure success - any other (new) band selling 2-3 millions worldwide would be delirious?

In Denmark they got platin. (But we're only a very small market - just the same, at least 115.000 (maybe 135.000) people will have seen them here within 11 months - no small feat) And I think sales in the rest of Europe have been ok if not exactly ecstatic.

Maybe Bob Dylan had a point when he said that enough songs have been written and he no longer felt the need to write new songs. The world no longer needs new songs. (Then, again, I listen to Amy Winehouse "Back in Black" and realize he's totally wrong ;-)

But even if Stones delivered "Exile in Las Vegas" (or whatever) - I don't think it would be recognized as a masterpiece. The zeitgeist belongs to other bands - but music is just one of many "avenues" (for want of a better word) for the youth of today. I honestly do not believe that any new music is awaited with the same anticipation that the world had for the "new one" from Beatles, Stones and Dylan from 1964 - 1974.

When the going gets weird, the weird turns pro

LOL,
I'm not sure that "failing" to sell out huge stadiums accross an entire continent at the end of such a huge tour is an indicator that "there's no market for them"

The various reasons for the tour not selling out [I nearly typed failure to sell out again... but the F word does NOT apply ;^)] have been discussed at length and most argumwents, I think, have some validity.

That said... and as far as I can see, given that the band have toured so constantly for the last 15 or more years, giving much of the world's urban population a chance to see them, the demand for them is still very strong.
Would more seats have been sold at lower prices ? of course they would. Could this leg of the tour been promoted a little better ? Probably.
But that's all with the benefit of hindsight.
In a perfect world, Europe would have lots of big arenas like the new o2 which would be perfect for the Stones at thi sstage of their career. It hasn't.
If it did, and if they'd have played a tour of 20,000 capacity halls, some folks wopuld have moaned that they couldn't get tickets and would ask why they hadn't played stadiums !
No win situation if I ever saw one ;^).
The simplest summation of what folks have been fretting about is to say that that the available venues were simply just a bit bigger than they needed to be!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-09 16:06 by Spud.

Spud wrote:

(A) "Given that the band have toured so constantly for the last 15 or more years, giving much of the world's urban population a chance to see them, the demand for them is still very strong."

CORRECT #1. I have said many times, running the risk of being monotonous, that attracting 4,600,000 people worldwide now (not including Rio's gig) is much more remarkable than drawing 5,600,000 in 1997-99 or 6,600,000 in 1994/95 or 6,000, 000 in 1989/90. The frequency of tours in the last 13 years is incredibly high. Given this factor the current demand is AMAZING.


( "Would more seats have been sold at lower prices ? of course they would."

CORRECT #2. But not in a proportion many people think about. I mean, some people thing that if the Stones were charging tickets 30% cheaper, then they could have a 30% bigger attendance. No. The whole thing doesn't work like that. Although the tickets should be lower. Much lower IMO.

(C) "In a perfect world, Europe would have lots of big arenas like the new o2 which would be perfect for the Stones at this stage of their career. It hasn't.
If it did, and if they'd have played a tour of 20,000 capacity halls, some folks wopuld have moaned that they couldn't get tickets and would ask why they hadn't played stadiums!"

CORRECT #3, as for your last point. That "some folks would have moaned that they couldn't get tickets and would ask why they hadn't played stadiums!". But even at this stage of their career, a tour of arenas ONLY, or even BASICALLY, would be very "narrow" and confining. Last year in Europe the average attendance was 48,000. On the current leg it is approximately 33,000 - 35,000, as in many cases the Stones are visiting the same countries. Still to many people for arenas, unless the Stones are prepared to do 50 or 70 concerts during a summer! Even they were 30 years younger that would be crazy...

If the Stones do another tour, their choice could be stadiums and arenas, but doing FEWER GIGS. This is the key IMO.


No win situation if I ever saw one ;^).
The simplest summation of what folks have been fretting about is to say that that the available venues were simply just a bit bigger than they needed to be!

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL,
> I'm not sure that "failing" to sell out huge
> stadiums accross an entire continent at the end of
> such a huge tour is an indicator that "there's no
> market for them"
>

I believe my point was, that there is no "market" for a NEW Stones RECORD these days. They will sell, of course, to the already converted but to sell beyond that, they need a hit and to have a hit, they need the radio. And the radio just does not play Stones. And that is not a problem for the Stones only. (Incidentally in Denmark, the local stations play a lot of Stones - or so I've been told)

Still, if one believes that an estimated 2½ million albums have been sold - I'd say they pay their own way. They hardly use up studio time these days - unless of course, Mick Jagger charged the Stones for using "his shed" ;-)

My other point is that there IS indeed a market for the Stones to tour - that was my main point. If you read my whole message, I said that no way could selling an average of 35.000 - 40.000 tickets per show be taken as a sign or even an indicator of failure.

As for playing fewer gigs - the Stones will probably do what they think is the wisest move. I partly see this tour as a token of "sorry" from the Stones on behalf of the fans who were blown off last year.

But if you look at it from a business side of view - the first concerts are the most expensive ones to put on and gradually the cost will slow down to only the "variable costs" - i.e. keeping the show on the road on a daily basis. Therefore the Stones - or Cohl - will make more money out of the last shows.

The last shows in this case being all of the shows on this last European leg as the machine is already built and in motion and the cost therefore much lower.

This was also the incentitive for the "No Security Tour" - cheaper to keep the show on the road than stopping and then reconvene 3/4 of a year later.

As for playing smaller places - in the Scandinavian countries, I think that is not a real option as we do not have anything "in-between". In Denmark, we either have Parken at 48.000 plus or some other place that perhaps only hold 20.000. But then, maybe the stage will be too big....lots of considerations....and probably a few more than most of us realize when we chip in with all this "backseat-driver-advice"

In the old days, Stones never made any money touring Europe. I think that has changed - and good for them. I don't work for free either ;-)

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spud wrote:
>
> (A) "Given that the band have toured so constantly
> for the last 15 or more years, giving much of the
> world's urban population a chance to see them, the
> demand for them is still very strong."
>
> CORRECT #1. I have said many times, running the
> risk of being monotonous, that attracting
> 4,600,000 people worldwide now (not including
> Rio's gig) is much more remarkable than drawing
> 5,600,000 in 1997-99 or 6,600,000 in 1994/95 or
> 6,000, 000 in 1989/90. The frequency of tours in
> the last 13 years is incredibly high. Given this
> factor the current demand is AMAZING.

again this Stickydion expert is telling us whats wrong and whats correct. mark your words as your personal opinion instead, otherwise you always come across as Mr. Super-Clever # 1, man!!! you may say something many times like mantra but this does not turn your opinions into objective truth! "current demand" is simply SHIT!!!! now thats my opinion.

>
> ( "Would more seats have been sold at lower
> prices ? of course they would."
>
> CORRECT #2. But not in a proportion many people
> think about. I mean, some people thing that if the
> Stones were charging tickets 30% cheaper, then
> they could have a 30% bigger attendance. No. The
> whole thing doesn't work like that. Although the
> tickets should be lower. Much lower IMO.

"the whole thing does not work like that" - but you know how it works for sure? reasonable prices would have guaranteed a much bigger attendance and considerably more sellouts thats my opinion but of course Im no expert like you.


> (C) "In a perfect world, Europe would have lots of
> big arenas like the new o2 which would be perfect
> for the Stones at this stage of their career. It
> hasn't.
> If it did, and if they'd have played a tour of
> 20,000 capacity halls, some folks wopuld have
> moaned that they couldn't get tickets and would
> ask why they hadn't played stadiums!"
>
> CORRECT #3, as for your last point. That "some
> folks would have moaned that they couldn't get
> tickets and would ask why they hadn't played
> stadiums!". But even at this stage of their
> career, a tour of arenas ONLY, or even BASICALLY,
> would be very "narrow" and confining. Last year in
> Europe the average attendance was 48,000. On the
> current leg it is approximately 33,000 - 35,000,
> as in many cases the Stones are visiting the same
> countries.

funny but there wer times when they were able to sell out two consecutive stadium shows in same city in a row!!! ever thought of that? now its almost like: "oh, they've been to Holland already one time last year so its understandable that Benelux is kinda burned for them this year" excuses excuses excuses!!! Netherlands was Stones country once, like Germany too and now they are not able to fill their venues there!!!!!

oh and Werchter was on tuesday midlle of the week and in the middle of nowwhere, oh what a mistake by management - again excuses excuses excuses - there was a time when opening shows atrracted people from all over Europe no matter where they took place and when they took place! disappointing attendance for opening show is also something totally new for Stones.

"Last year in Europe the average attendance was 48,000. On the current leg it is approximately 33,000 - 35,000" - now thats a correct observation for change and a quite telling one too!!!!!!!!

It has been mentioned by another poster that as a whole ABB tour ticket sales are impressing but current ticket sales are simply not!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-09 18:33 by alimente.

bartfrombrussels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any pictures of empty stadiumsections?

Well, although I wholeheartedly disagree with the empty stadium theories...I read reports of such phenomena every day. There were claims of Frankfurt being the emptiest of all. Here's a Frankfurt pic already posted on this site.



Sections behind the stage are typically empty but should we count those?

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Well, although I wholeheartedly disagree with the
> empty stadium theories...I read reports of such
> phenomena every day. There were claims of
> Frankfurt being the emptiest of all. Here's a
> Frankfurt pic already posted on this site.
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt the stage relocated to face across the width of the pitch instead of across the length as a result of slow sales?

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> That said... and as far as I can see, given that
> the band have toured so constantly for the last 15
> or more years, giving much of the world's urban
> population a chance to see them, the demand for
> them is still very strong.

agreed

> Would more seats have been sold at lower prices ?
> of course they would. Could this leg of the tour
> been promoted a little better ? Probably.


Not "probably", but "certainly"

> But that's all with the benefit of hindsight.

I dont agree, Spud. They didnt announce this tour until, what, March 21st and even by late April some shows werent on sale for a tour which was to begin in early June. When you factor into the equation that by that stage every other act touring this summer had put their tickets on sale weeks and sometimes months earlier, plus the fact that the Stones charge more for a ticket than everyone else, then it was quite obvious from the start that they were going to have trouble filling the size of venues that theyd chosen to play. Lots of people had been saying this for months while we waited and waited for the shows to be announced. It was common knowledge from last summer that the band had intended to tour Europe in 2007, yet instead of announcing the shows in November-December as has always been the case in the past, they waited until a couple of months prior to the start of the tour. Anyone could see that it was going to take a herculean amount of promotion to get many shows to sell well (after the slow sales of 2006, it shouldnt have been a surprise)


> In a perfect world, Europe would have lots of big
> arenas like the new o2 which would be perfect for
> the Stones at thi sstage of their career. It
> hasn't.

Thats the Stones and Cohl's problem, in fairness. Not Europe's. The bottom line is dont ask for so much money to perform.

> If it did, and if they'd have played a tour of
> 20,000 capacity halls, some folks wopuld have
> moaned that they couldn't get tickets and would
> ask why they hadn't played stadiums !

True, but in fairness Stones fans have had 40 plus years of having to deal with the supply and demand issue of following a hugely successful band. Besides, you can always get round that problem with the way tickets are distributed now (pre sales etc). We got tickets for the arena Licks shows OK.

> No win situation if I ever saw one ;^).
> The simplest summation of what folks have been
> fretting about is to say that that the available
> venues were simply just a bit bigger than they
> needed to be!

True. They could have just picked some smaller stadiums.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-09 20:42 by Gazza.

Yes - they could have lowered the price - but to what extent?

And do the maths - a stadium that takes 60.000 is 2/3 full at 200 Euros a ticket (that is 40.000 x 200 = 8.000.000 Euros). Now sell the tickets at 100 Euros and sell out the stadium and you have 6.000.000 Euros). You could also sell the tickets for 150 Euros and you'd still "only" make 9.000.000 Euros. And only if you sell out!!)

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes - they could have lowered the price - but to
> what extent?
>


well returning to countries one year after youve cancelled/rescheduled shows for various reasons and having the ticket prices considerably higher than they had been 12 months earlier isnt exactly going to endear them for starters...

Pegging them (not the same as 'lowering' them) to a level thats on a par with other name acts also helps. Especially when youve only a couple of months to sell the bloody things and most of Europe have already made their holiday plans for the summer by the time you finally get your finger out of your behind and put them on sale. The Stones were already at a disadvantage before any shows were announced. Cohl and co obviously seem to forget that most of their potential customers DO have lives and arent going to delay their plans for the summer waiting on a Stones concert date being announced.

>And do the maths - a stadium that takes 60.000 is 2/3 full at 200 Euros a ticket (that is 40.000 x 200 = 8.000.000 Euros). Now sell the tickets at 100 Euros and sell out the stadium and you have 6.000.000 Euros). You could also sell the tickets for 150 Euros and you'd still "only" make 9.000.000 Euros. And only if you sell out!!)

Trust me. No stadium in Europe that holds 60,000 is going to sell anywhere near 2/3 of the tickets if the average price is 200 Euros.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-09 21:31 by Gazza.

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bartfrombrussels Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Any pictures of empty stadiumsections?
>
> Well, although I wholeheartedly disagree with the
> empty stadium theories...I read reports of such
> phenomena every day. There were claims of
> Frankfurt being the emptiest of all. Here's a
> Frankfurt pic already posted on this site.
>
> [i137.photobucket.com]
> pg
>
> Sections behind the stage are typically empty but
> should we count those?

Maybe the oldest audience but what the fuc...we all get old!!

alimente, you are very upset. Why? Noone is "expert" here. I just have my opinion, as you have yours. What exactly does bother you?

You say:

(1) "Netherlands was Stones country once, like Germany too and now they are not able to fill their venues there!!!!!"

You know, it's called saturation, if my (bad) english does help me... But despite the fact that two so important markets are satured, the Stones on ABB tour are attracting 2, 000, 000 people in Europe. Ever thought of that?

(2) "funny but there wer times when they were able to sell out two consecutive stadium shows in same city in a row!!! ever thought of that?"

Yes. But when the Stones were doing tours with a freguency similar to the frequency of the last 10- 15 years, they were playing to 400,000 people, not to millions as they do today. Ever thought of that?

(3) "Last year in Europe the average attendance was 48,000. On the current leg it is approximately 33,000 - 35,000" - now thats a correct observation for change and a quite telling one too!!!!!!!!"

Really? So, in your opinion, even if the Stones weren't playing (just an example) to 85,000 people in Denmark last year, they couldn't attract more people in Denmark this summer. Maybe in your opinion, even if the cancellations never had been, they couldn't attract in 2007 more people in Barcelona, Madrid or Brussels. They sold last year so many tickets for Barcelona, Madrid or Brussels, but their popularity has been faded during 12 months for some mysterious, unknown reasons... OK, it's your opinion. Respectable.

(4) "It has been mentioned by another poster that as a whole ABB tour ticket sales are impressing but current ticket sales are simply not!!!"

As you have hopefully seen, i agreed on that. By the Stones standards the
attendance in 2007 is not impressive or enormous. But that doesn't mean that the sales are "shit", just because attracting one million people playing in front of 35,000 people per night couldn't be "shit". In any terms. You know, life is not black and white.

Have a nice day.


"Once", "Once", Once"

Nothing to be bothered about. They cant be the biggest band in the world all the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-10 00:05 by Hasse78.

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes - they could have lowered the price - but to
> what extent?
>
> And do the maths - a stadium that takes 60.000 is
> 2/3 full at 200 Euros a ticket (that is 40.000 x
> 200 = 8.000.000 Euros). Now sell the tickets at
> 100 Euros and sell out the stadium and you have
> 6.000.000 Euros). You could also sell the tickets
> for 150 Euros and you'd still "only" make
> 9.000.000 Euros. And only if you sell out!!)

As Gazza wrote, for an average price of 200 Euro you woulnd't even get 40000 people. But You forgot another important thing in your equation: With 60000 you have 50 percent more people buying drinks and merchandising compared to 40000. That lowers the break even point considerably.

Gazza wrote:


"Pegging them (not the same as 'lowering' them) to a level thats on a par with other name acts also helps. Especially when youve only a couple of months to sell the bloody things and most of Europe have already made their holiday plans for the summer by the time you finally get your finger out of your behind and put them on sale. The Stones were already at a disadvantage before any shows were announced. Cohl and co obviously seem to forget that most of their potential customers DO have lives and arent going to delay their plans for the summer waiting on a Stones concert date being announced."

Sorry... I forgot to write three words. Good points Gazza...

firebird Wrote:
> As Gazza wrote, for an average price of 200 Euro
> you woulnd't even get 40000 people. But You forgot
> another important thing in your equation: With
> 60000 you have 50 percent more people buying
> drinks and merchandising compared to 40000. That
> lowers the break even point considerably.

Hmmmm...boyz, boyz, boyz...these are only examples. I don't know the exact prices across Europe so was using 200, 150 and 100 to get my point across! ;-)

Besides, that...I agree with you on the merchandising and drinks and whatnot..but did not want to complicate things further through introducing these parameters.

It seems to be complicated enough already? ;-)

You could also start to contemplate the tax ramifacations if you do not sell out one venue....could you then deduce the loss from the profits off the next one etc......

Like I wrote "lots of considerations....and probably a few more than most of us realize when we chip in with all this "backseat-driver-advice""

Still - my point is: Is there any (other) band in the world that could tour through Europe in summer 2007 and sell 35.000 - 40.000 per concert at the moment?

From what I've heard the Police and Genesis are not selling out all their shows. As regards the former I'm a bit surprised.......

And Metallica recently performed for only 20.000 in Lisboa (and especially for the whiners: they only performed 18 songs!!! *lol*)

People are tiring of these great rock extravagances - it's like football/soccer. Back in the day you had to wait and wait for a great match to be on - these days it seems there are crucial games on every day.

I am tired of it myself - I saw Stones in 2006 in Horsens and that was enough. If they played in my back yard it would be okay - but I have to travel each time so the cost is generally 500 Euros - all included.

The only reason I wanted to go this time (my fifth time with Stones in Parken) was Van Morrison and he pulled out. But by then I had made the arrangements with some people to go...so here we gooooooooooooooooooooo ;-) (And I think Toots will be okay too.....better than most of the warm-ups Copenhagen has seen)

mofur Wrote:
> Hmmmm...boyz, boyz, boyz...these are only
> examples. I don't know the exact prices across
> Europe so was using 200, 150 and 100 to get my
> point across! ;-)

Average ticket price for London last year was about £95. The UK shows were by some distance the most expensive in Europe, with the top prices at £150.

the 3 indoor London shows this year are priced at £150, £100 and £70 with MOST of the tickets costing £150.

prices across the continent vary but while theyre at their most expensive for the prime seats at the all-seated shows in Germany, etc, theyre in general considerably cheaper than in the UK. My FOS tickets (standing) for Lisbon and Madrid were around 70 Euro.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Average ticket price for London last year was
> about £95. The UK shows were by some distance the
> most expensive in Europe, with the top prices at
> £150.
>
> the 3 indoor London shows this year are priced at
> £150, £100 and £70 with MOST of the tickets
> costing £150.
>
£150 - that is almost 222 Euros....gasp! ;-)

Now ya know why so many of us go to the shows on the continent!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now ya know why so many of us go to the shows on
> the continent!


I would not mind paying that to see the Stones indoors ;-)

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt the stage
> relocated to face across the width of the pitch
> instead of across the length as a result of slow
> sales?

Oh, I thought they relocated the stage to make it so those in the "cheap seats" had a better view?

Yeah, I heard the same thing about the stage relocation...
But some folks claimed there were empty sections despite the stage relocation and I remember the place being quite packed...except behind the stage.

Excluding IOW and DB, 13 shows so far : audience : 540,000. 16 more , of which 7 are nearly known in terms of attendance : Ch, Germany,London : 210,000. Thus, 20 out of 29 : 750,000.Last year 20 shows : 975,000. Frorecast for the 9 next coming shows : 450,000 * 70 % = 315,000 ===> a total of 2,000,000 can be reached on 49 shows ( 40 K/ per show).