Do you think in the band's head that the 360 Tour could have failed in America?

[theu2fly]

Some 15 years after Popmart, they finally get the confidence to do a stadium tour. While No Line wasn't generally huge in America, they managed to nearly sell out every show (I believe Norman was shy of 10,000 tickets) -- however, the rest of shows, even in places they hadn't played before sold out.

Do you think the band took a huge risk and figured "Go big or go home?" Or would they have contemplated another arena tour with a much stripped down stage to play it safe?

I think that they figured that wanted to see if it was possible, maybe try it out for a leg, and if it sold out they'd continue it. Had the 1st leg had poor sales, I think they might have resorted back to arenas...

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

No offense, but why does it matter? It's in the past. Not sure what good it does to speculate. They did the big stadium tour, it was a success, it's over, let's move on. There's nothing really left to talk about.

 

[theu2fly]

No offense, but why does it matter? It's in the past. Not sure what good it does to speculate. They did the big stadium tour, it was a success, it's over, let's move on. There's nothing really left to talk about.

Something called retrospect... for those that care to discuss it. You do realize there are some intuitive minds that like to wonder what if... No offense taken of course...

 

[digitize]

(I believe Norman was shy of 10,000 tickets)

Nah, Norman had 40-50k. Literally every show was a technical sellout. Every show everywhere. Now, many shows didn't have every seat for sale (Norman included), but it definitely sold more than 10k seats.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

:waits for the giant posts with box score figgures:

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Norman had just over 50K, not for certain but the figure 50,300 OR 53,000 comes to mind. The stadium actually holds over 85k people on game day, so thats probably not a sell out unless they only put up 5X,XXX tickets for sale.

It was an amazing show.

 

[digitize]

Yes, Mrs. Garrison, that's exactly what they did.

 

[Galeongirl]

I can't look in their head, so don't know what was in their mind at the time.

Could have, but they didn't.

 

[mama cass]

i don't understand the question

 

[Dfit00]

The price range of the tickets for most of the tour were in the price range $30-$70.

This affordable price range for the band's prestige and popularity let consumer demand soar because it was affordable, which could explain why the majority of the stadium's cheap seats were sold out for fans and non-fans combined.

 

[whackjester]

Some 15 years after Popmart, they finally get the confidence to do a stadium tour. While No Line wasn't generally huge in America, they managed to nearly sell out every show (I believe Norman was shy of 10,000 tickets) -- however, the rest of shows, even in places they hadn't played before sold out.

Do you think the band took a huge risk and figured "Go big or go home?" Or would they have contemplated another arena tour with a much stripped down stage to play it safe?

I think that they figured that wanted to see if it was possible, maybe try it out for a leg, and if it sold out they'd continue it. Had the 1st leg had poor sales, I think they might have resorted back to arenas...

There's no way they would've gone to an arena tour after one leg. They would have lost millions on the construction of the stage alone. Three claws aren't cheap. I agree with others. They knew that people would come out because their back catalog is great and the seats were priced strategically to meet both supply and demand.

 

[zoopop]

I think a few things come to play about the 360 being a success in NA:

-Elevation & Vertigo tour were in a way campaigns for U2 to play stadiums again in the US. During both these tours they made U2 live a high demand item, thus selling 70% of stadium on that factor alone. The band said they should have done a stadium show for Vertigo in NA (Leg 3) but for whatever reason played it safe. It was time for a stadium show to let everyone see U2.

-Prices were very reasonable. I flew to Chicago on Friday, saw U2 Saturday, and returned Sunday (stayed at a friends) for less than $250. That included a GA ticket too. But $35 to see U2 with that kind of production is a great deal. Cheap seats or not.

-I think starting the tour in Europe was another great idea. This gave US (casual) fans a chance to see pictures & video of the show. It also gave NLOTH some breathing room. Sure, some of the songs weren't well received live, but just think of how less received they would have been in June. The band to was well rehearsed too. Chicago I was an awesome show from the bands performance point of view. I still think this is part of why Popmart suffered on the 1st leg. U2 were unrehearsed and the album was out a month??? Crazy from U2 standards.

-And for some people at the show it was more a spectacle to see. Sure it was U2, but it was also the biggest rock show ever and probably the biggest show most people will ever see in their lifetime. I don't know how U2 or the Stones (if they tour) could ever top the 360. From a rock concert and logistical standpoint.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

you don't spend the amount of money that they spent to scrap a second leg and move indoors. u2 went all in with this one. there were no second thoughts. it was all or none.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

-I think starting the tour in Europe was another great idea. This gave US (casual) fans a chance to see pictures & video of the show. It also gave NLOTH some breathing room. Sure, some of the songs weren't well received live, but just think of how less received they would have been in June. The band to was well rehearsed too. Chicago I was an awesome show from the bands performance point of view. I still think this is part of why Popmart suffered on the 1st leg. U2 were unrehearsed and the album was out a month??? Crazy from U2 standards.

agreed. the US market is more fickle. they'll turn on an under-rehearsed U2 with a non-hit album faster than Europe or the rest of the world.

 

[U2387]

I think it was pretty clear from April 2009(when the details of 360 were announced) that they were "all in" on stadiums. Band member quotes had hinted it this before the official announcement, too.

It was also clear at this time that they'd planned things out extremely well. I remember thinking that the tickets were perfectly priced to sell given the economic circumstances, and it was probably the most impressed I'd ever been by the business side of U2.

As Zoopop stated very well, they'd already played it safe and tested demand with Elevation and Vertigo and they were confident America was ready for all stadiums.

Also, good to finally see people touching on the ticket prices. Seeing U2 was a bargain on 360, even compared to the bargain that all their tours are relative to say, The Stones or The Police. The whole "U2 tickets are insanely expensive and impossible to get" reputation comes from idiots who wait and get tickets marked up from the scalpers.

So many acts charge much, much more and put much less into their show-production wise but more importantly, performance wise.

 

[nathan1977]

I would be curious to see what went into the planning though. It sounds, from what Bono said, as though some band members were on the fence about touring this time around, and he had to talk them into it. And the cost of this tour is definitely a long barrel to stare down.

 

[theu2fly]

I would be curious to see what went into the planning though. It sounds, from what Bono said, as though some band members were on the fence about touring this time around, and he had to talk them into it. And the cost of this tour is definitely a long barrel to stare down.

Bono convincing the others to tour? I'm sure they were hesitant, but seemed to love being on tour... but that kind of scares me that they might not share the same passion.

 

[U2girl]

I would be curious to see what went into the planning though. It sounds, from what Bono said, as though some band members were on the fence about touring this time around, and he had to talk them into it.

Source ?

As for the OP : I'm surprised they waited this long with stadiums in the US. I thought they were going to try it on the back of sucess of BD/ATYCLB and Vertigo.
I guess doing it in the middle of a huge recession and no hit to speak of at the 5-0 age makes it one of their most impressive feats career-wise.

 

[popacrobat]

Well, they were planning on bringing a stadium leg of Vertigo to the US, but didn't... so it had definitely been on their mind for a bit to do stadiums.

If nothing else, 360° proved that U2 can play stadiums anytime, any place, even without a successful single. No Line the album was a critical success by and large, but obviously lacked a single. Hopefully, they realize this and just make whatever music they want to make and not worry about making hits -- hits will come naturally, and they certainly don't need them to trek out on the most successful tour ever.

 

[U2girl]

Of course, the other side is people didn't care for NLOTH/Boots/the new material, they were mostly there to see the show.
That is something they didn't really have to face before...

 

[popacrobat]

well sure. but they know people will come out no matter what, unlike on Popmart.

Elevation/Vertigo tours, they had big hits to support the tour, result? sold out tour.

360° they had no hit to speak of, result? sold out tour.

It's a reality they just need to embrace -- casual fans will come out to see them no matter what. They're at the stage of their career where they're obviously legendary, they're the biggest act in the world, one of the best ever, etc. etc., thanks to their past catalogue. If anything, it tells them they can take risks because of the safety net of that past, and they'll sell out tours no matter what.

maybe I'm looking at that a bit too simplistically/optimistically, but there's really no reason not to embrace their past at this point.

 

[U2girl]

To some extent, they became a "must see show" act ever since they brought out Zoo TV. Their live reputation exceeds their studio achievements.

The back catalogue doesn't hurt, but it's a shame a record as good as NLOTH didn't get the same chance ATYCLB and Bomb did just because they made a truly bad lead single choice. Moreso it's a shame for a band that believes in their new output as much as they do - usually playing 7-8 new songs regularly in the set - that it failed this time. This has to be on their mind. What do you do when no one wants to hear the new stuff ?

 

[The Panther]

Their live reputation exceeds their studio achievements.

I pretty much agree with this. And this is the point at which legendary bands become the 1990s Rolling Stones/Pink Floyd/Eagles. I think U2 realize they're (again) in danger of teetering on dinosaur-status, and that's maybe why they're taking a step back now to re-think things.

There's nothing wrong with living off live shows instead of studio recordings (some would argue that's the only real way for musicians to live, in fact), but I think it becomes problematic when the studio recordings eat up HUGE amounts of time and money, and are clearly aiming for chart success, and then relatively fail. So, in U2's case, I think it's not too good if people are not into the new album's tunes and the band is playing to 50,000 a night. There's something wrong with that formula. But they know this, and they'll straighten it out.

 

[Rachel D.]

I think they were a little worried, since NLOTH wasn't really popular; so they dropped most of the NLOTH songs and didn't focus on promoting the album so much. It all worked out OK in the end.

 

[nathan1977]

Source ?

I'm fairly certain it was an interview in Rolling Stone. Bono talked about how certain members of the band were on the fence about touring this time around, or not that excited about gearing up for an around-the-world tour, and he reminded them how lucky they were to be doing it. Something like that.