Biggest Grossing Tours Of All Time

[Moggio]

I don't think there is an argument...

I don't think so either...

 

[Moggio]

U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE

GROSS: $580,454,297
ATTENDANCE: 5,570,560
Average Gross: $6,828,874
Average Attendance: 65,536
Average Ticket Price: $104.20
Shows: 85
Sellouts: 85

THE ROLLING STONES - A BIGGER BANG TOUR 2005-2007

GROSS: $558,255,524
ATTENDANCE: 4,680,000
Average Gross: $3,903,885
Average Attendance: 32,727
Average Ticket Price: $119.29
Shows: 143
Sellouts: 82

Pay close attention to the average gross and attendance per show!

Pay close attention to the fact you're comparing a pre-HEAVILY strategically scheduled tour, with stats that are a few years old to a HEAVILY strategically scheduled tour, with current stats.

More genius from Maoil!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

She is. You're comparing her 2 1/2 year old stats, that would be HIGHER today, to U2's current stats.

1. Your forgetting the fact that she had not been to South America for 15 years and the impact that has on demand.

2. Inflation over the last two years would only boost the gross to just over $53 million.

3. Madonna has not done anything since December of 2008 that would have significantly boosted her popularity in South America.

The numbers don't lie, Madonna just got beat by U2 in South America. 2.5 years is small enough amount of time to make a side by side comparison. Again, you have to engage in stretching when you try to refute these facts.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

They might resemble them...but they're not the same. And they're certainly strategically scheduled.



They are not necessarily the "standard cities played by just about every artist who visits these regions or countries..." But that's beside the point. The point is they're strategically scheduled...but you said they weren't. Guess what? You're wrong, AS USUAL.



Of course. And it's not a "claim." A few were.



Now you're getting the hang of it!

Ok Moggio, can you give me an example of a stadium tour of a Australia that was NOT "strategically scheduled"?

I thought you said Strategic Scheduling of the type we see with 360 is "BRAND NEW"? The fact your now claiming it was used decades ago directly contradict this point. Also, why would promoters like Live Nation use strategic scheduling in places like Australia, but not in Europe, which is what one could say happened on POPMART, if we agree with your logic here?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You're blurring the lines AGAIN by asking too many questions. So, I'll have to simplify it for you, AS USUAL:

Only 4 or 5 markets on the UK/European legs of the A Bigger Bang tour were strategically scheduled. So, if both legs had been HEAVILY strategically scheduled (ala the 360 tour), the total gross for both legs would've EASILY been over $300 million, instead of the $216 million they did gross WITHOUT heavily utilizing it. I've already given you an estimate for the Stones' next tour, if it happened to be in 2013, with 110 dates, heavy strategic scheduling and utilizing relatively strong openers. So, since you've already asked enough questions, I'll let you figure out what the total of their UK/European dates would be, considering the aforementioned factors...

Well, how would you have strategically scheduled the Stones A Bigger Bang Tour for Europe using the two legs, one in summer 2006 and one in summer 2007?

How many markets would you of had the Stones play over those two legs?
How many shows over the two legs?

Where would you have them play on each leg?

Lets take Paris for example. How would you have been able to get the Stones to gross MORE from their shows in Paris through Strategic Scheduling and how much more? They played Paris once in the summer of 2006 and once in the summer of 2007.


Again, if you don't play certain markets on the first leg, that may indeed boost demand for the remaining markets, but its not clear that the overall gross for that leg would be any different because while the gross increases for certain markets, its wiped out completely for the markets that don't get played. Those two factors negate each other and the gross for the first leg or the 2nd leg comes out the same.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Secondly, before 2009, my predictions were NOT based on strategic scheduling, since it was not used on this scale by ANYONE before the 360 tour.

Well, you just claimed above that it has been used for decades in places like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico by multiple artist? Is Strategic scheduling new or not? Why would promoters use strategic scheduling in Australia but not in Europe since you claim it brings in so much more money?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

And once again, The Stones could've easily played more shows on the A Bigger Bang tour...

Not to the degree that U2 could since they have not played a single arena or theater show in North America unlike the Stones.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Pay close attention to the fact you're comparing a pre-HEAVILY strategically scheduled tour, with stats that are a few years old to a HEAVILY strategically scheduled tour, with current stats.

More genius from Maoil!

The differences between the two tours are not nearly as large as you claim. Live Nation did everything it could to maximize gross for the Stones during A Bigger Bang.

Yes, the two tours are 3 years apart, but its difficult to see how the Rolling Stones could wake up tomorrow and do exactly what U2 has done in 110 stadiums.

But your claiming that even if the Stones restrict themselves to arena's on their next tour, that they will make it to $850 million in gross after 110 shows.

 

[robbrecon72]

Wow...it's obvious you're comparing a pre-HEAVILY strategically scheduled tour, with stats that are a few years old to a HEAVILY strategically scheduled tour, with stats that are current.

And once again, The Stones could've easily played more shows on the A Bigger Bang tour...

i don't disagree with you, i think the stones could have played more shows as well. but, they did play 37 more shows to 700,000 less people than U2 did. it's obvious U2 has not soaked up the market completely and its only logical they could hit markets with arenas they have not touched. U2 is also playing a tour in venues that are less liked than arenas or theatres, and during a bad economy. are these factors that should be overlooked?

 

[spookyz]

You don't have it straight at all.

First of all, it's once you look at WHICH markets were strategically scheduled for Madonna (SOME) vs. WHICH markets were strategically scheduled for U2 (VIRTUALLY ALL), you'll notice a difference. Madonna's overall gross still may not have been higher than U2's at that point in time, but U2's definitely would've been lower if strategic scheduling hadn't been utilized.

Secondly, before 2009, my predictions were NOT based on strategic scheduling, since it was not used on this scale by ANYONE before the 360 tour.

The Sticky And Sweet Tour was also "heavily strategically scheduled."

Madonna played 4 shows in Germany within 2 years. U2 played 5 shows in Germany within 2 years.

Madonna and U2 played the SAME shows in France on the first leg. Both artists did not have a show in Belgium on this particular leg. On the second leg, U2 played one more show at Stade de France (with two stadium shows in Belgium) wheras Madonna played only one arena show in France with one stadium show in Belgium.

Madonna did the same thing with Milan and Rome as U2 have done. But U2 played 2 shows in Milan on one leg, wheras Madonna has done one show. Overall, Madonna played three shows in Italy within two years wheras U2 played 4 shows in Italy within two years.

Madonna played 5 markets in Spain within two years, U2 played three markets in Spain within two years.

Madonna played one show in Amsterdam with no shows in Belgium and one show in Düsseldorf. U2 played two shows in Amsterdan with no shows in Belgium and one show in Gelsenkirchen.

Madonna played one show in Zurich and one show in Frankfurt, no show in Munich and no show in Northern Italy. U2 played 2 shows in Zurich with one show in Frankfurt, one show in Munich and one show in Torino.

Madonna played Vienna in 2008 with no show in Munich, she only played Budapest in 2009. U2 played Vienna and Munich in 2010, no show in Budapest.

Madonna played two shows in Oslo, two shows in Gotheborg and one show in Copenhagen on the same leg, which is impressive. U2 skipped Norway and Denmark on the first leg and only played Denmark on the second leg.

Madonna played one stadium show in London and one stadium show in Cardiff on the first leg, no shows in Ireland. U2 played 5 stadium shows in the UK and 3 stadium shows in Ireland in the same year.

Madonna played Portugal with one show in Sevilla in the same year, U2 did the same thing.

Then there's her run through Eastern Europe in 2009. U2 haven't toured these markets at all, so there's nothing to compare here. I'm sure they would have done a similar thing on the long rumoured 2011 stadium leg. There's still huge demand there for U2.

So basically, the Sticky and Sweet Tour in Europe was at least as heavily strategically scheduled as the 360° Tour. U2 have "more strategically scheduled" their tour in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Spain. Madonna has "more strategically scheduled" her tour in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, UK, Ireland, France. Both tours were scheduled quite the same in Italy, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece (except for the fact that U2 were still able to play Milan, Brussels and Amsterdam twice)

Additionally, Madonna only visited 18 markets in North America, only 6 of which were in stadiums. That's what I call a heavily strategically scheduled tour.

 

[AdamThomasU2]

Big thanks to everyone who has contributed facts and information to this thread as I like to see the boxscores come in on the way to U2's 360 tour becoming as big as it has. I think I can speak for everyone when I say that there is an argument centered around one member getting in the way of a really useful and informative thread, and I am a bit baffled at the guys that keep replying when it is clearly a massive windup, and posting replies just adds fuel to the fire. If everyone was just to ignore certain posts and get on with genuine discussion then it wouldn't take us all so long to find the facts and information we are actually interested in.

There is no magic equation to how much support acts bring in terms of attendance and revenue but the vast majority of the time it will be irrelevant. Some posters know this but keep arguing it as if it needs defending!

This term "strategic scheduling" has been invented purely for this thread! The music industry is a business of course there is strategy, money is the bottom line for promoters and labels and they want to maximise profit wherever possible, for ALL their acts...Some posts have suggested that it is a new business model and that other acts just throw together their tour dates with no logic or reason at all! Again, people keep arguing back at these claims when they know how absurd the idea is, can we just give up on it and move on?

There is a number of other issues that seem to be argued back and forth, but I literally can't understand why people are wasting their time responding to them - heck why am I even taking my time to write this? I am just PLEADING to get this thread back to being about facts and genuine insight and info, I really enjoy reading the numbers and stats behind these tours and its being ruined by trying to proove one poster wrong, when I'd be stunned if there were any observers of the thread that agreed with the claims being made.

Why hasn't a moderator come in and sorted this out. I am finding it really offensive being bombarded with opinions as facts, opinions as scientific equations, being told "YOU KNOW THAT" and seeing people getting mocked with little smilies over and over again. There is some actual useful stuff on this thread being hidden by this childish argument that some valuable posters are being drawn into - let's just ignore it and continue with adult posts and thoughts on these tours - no matter how many times we see a big blue font argue with every point that is made pro-u2, just scroll past it and move on. Stop feeding the monster, PLEASE!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

The Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang Tour Outside the United States/Canada RESULTS


GROSS: $265,582,081
ATTENDANCE: 2,541,731
Average Gross: $4,215,589
Average Attendance: 40,345
Average Ticket Price: $104.49
Shows: 63
Sellouts: 12

U2 360 Tour Outside the United States/Canada RESULTS

GROSS: $457,161,011
ATTENDANCE: 4,258,492
Average Gross: $7,033,246
Average Attendance: 65,515
Average Ticket Price: $107.35
Shows: 65
Sellouts: 65

7 of the 63 Rolling Stones shows outside the United States/Canada were in arena's. The other 56 shows were in stadium sized venues.

All of U2's shows outside the United States/Canada were of course in Stadiums. All the shows were performed in a 360 configeration.

U2's figures above do not include the Mexico City shows which will occur in May. These 3 shows will likely add $30 million in gross and 300,000 in attendance to the above results.

 

[Moggio]

1. Your forgetting the fact that she had not been to South America for 15 years and the impact that has on demand.

I'm not forgetting ANYTHING. Not ever playing a market, doesn't necessarily mean that it will boost your gross otherwise.

2. Inflation over the last two years would only boost the gross to just over $53 million.

Uh, no.

1. Inflation from 2008 to 2011 increased about 4%.

2. Her accumulative album sales total has increased 5-10% since 2008.

3. Also, Madonna played TWO MARKETS in Brazil. U2 only played ONE.

4. And finally, Madonna did not utilize an ARENA opener.

3. Madonna has not done anything since December of 2008 that would have significantly boosted her popularity in South America.

The numbers don't lie, Madonna just got beat by U2 in South America. 2.5 years is small enough amount of time to make a side by side comparison. Again, you have to engage in stretching when you try to refute these facts.

Incorrect, as shown above.

 

[Moggio]

Ok Moggio, can you give me an example of a stadium tour of a Australia that was NOT "strategically scheduled"?

I thought you said Strategic Scheduling of the type we see with 360 is "BRAND NEW"? The fact your now claiming it was used decades ago directly contradict this point. Also, why would promoters like Live Nation use strategic scheduling in places like Australia, but not in Europe, which is what one could say happened on POPMART, if we agree with your logic here?

Well, you just claimed above that it has been used for decades in places like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico by multiple artist? Is Strategic scheduling new or not? Why would promoters use strategic scheduling in Australia but not in Europe since you claim it brings in so much more money?

Pink Floyd's A Momentary Lapse Of Reason tour Australian leg and The Stones' Voodoo Lounge tour Australian leg are two examples of virtually no strategic scheduling.

I NEVER stated it wasn't utilized on a smaller scale. I said it hasn't been utilized for virtually EVERY market on one tour, like on the 360 tour.

 

[Moggio]

Not to the degree that U2 could since they have not played a single arena or theater show in North America unlike the Stones.

That's debatable.

 

[Moggio]

The differences between the two tours are not nearly as large as you claim.

That's incorrect, as already shown.

TLive Nation did everything it could to maximize gross for the Stones during A Bigger Bang.

But that's BEFORE HEAVY utilization of strategic scheduling had been used.

Yes, the two tours are 3 years apart, but its difficult to see how the Rolling Stones could wake up tomorrow and do exactly what U2 has done in 110 stadiums.

But your claiming that even if the Stones restrict themselves to arena's on their next tour, that they will make it to $850 million in gross after 110 shows.

That's NOT exactly what I said. There are OTHER factors included in my estimation.

 

[coolian2]

you two really need to boof already. there's more sexual tension in here than the entirety of a bad romantic comedy.

 

[Moggio]

i don't disagree with you, i think the stones could have played more shows as well. but, they did play 37 more shows to 700,000 less people than U2 did. it's obvious U2 has not soaked up the market completely and its only logical they could hit markets with arenas they have not touched. U2 is also playing a tour in venues that are less liked than arenas or theatres, and during a bad economy. are these factors that should be overlooked?

While I agree U2 would be able to play more arena shows in weaker B markets on this tour, there are obviously TENS OF THOUSANDS of tickets still left to be sold for the remaining 360 tour dates. So, I don't think the amount of arena shows they would be able to play would be as much as you probably think.

Generally speaking, for most major draws, concert demand is virtually recession proof. And since the 360 tour is doing as expected, I don't see how the economic meltdown that started in the fall of 2008 has affected U2 in a negative way...

 

[Moggio]

The Sticky And Sweet Tour was also "heavily strategically scheduled."

No, it wasn't.

Madonna played 4 shows in Germany within 2 years. U2 played 5 shows in Germany within 2 years.

Madonna and U2 played the SAME shows in France on the first leg. Both artists did not have a show in Belgium on this particular leg. On the second leg, U2 played one more show at Stade de France (with two stadium shows in Belgium) wheras Madonna played only one arena show in France with one stadium show in Belgium.

Madonna did the same thing with Milan and Rome as U2 have done. But U2 played 2 shows in Milan on one leg, wheras Madonna has done one show. Overall, Madonna played three shows in Italy within two years wheras U2 played 4 shows in Italy within two years.

Madonna played 5 markets in Spain within two years, U2 played three markets in Spain within two years.

Madonna played one show in Amsterdam with no shows in Belgium and one show in Düsseldorf. U2 played two shows in Amsterdan with no shows in Belgium and one show in Gelsenkirchen.

Madonna played one show in Zurich and one show in Frankfurt, no show in Munich and no show in Northern Italy. U2 played 2 shows in Zurich with one show in Frankfurt, one show in Munich and one show in Torino.

Madonna played Vienna in 2008 with no show in Munich, she only played Budapest in 2009. U2 played Vienna and Munich in 2010, no show in Budapest.

Madonna played two shows in Oslo, two shows in Gotheborg and one show in Copenhagen on the same leg, which is impressive. U2 skipped Norway and Denmark on the first leg and only played Denmark on the second leg.

Madonna played one stadium show in London and one stadium show in Cardiff on the first leg, no shows in Ireland. U2 played 5 stadium shows in the UK and 3 stadium shows in Ireland in the same year.

Madonna played Portugal with one show in Sevilla in the same year, U2 did the same thing.

Then there's her run through Eastern Europe in 2009. U2 haven't toured these markets at all, so there's nothing to compare here. I'm sure they would have done a similar thing on the long rumoured 2011 stadium leg. There's still huge demand there for U2.

So basically, the Sticky and Sweet Tour in Europe was at least as heavily strategically scheduled as the 360° Tour. U2 have "more strategically scheduled" their tour in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Spain. Madonna has "more strategically scheduled" her tour in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, UK, Ireland, France. Both tours were scheduled quite the same in Italy, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece (except for the fact that U2 were still able to play Milan, Brussels and Amsterdam twice)

I only see Italy, England and The Netherlands being HEAVILY strategically scheduled on her first leg in 2008. And on her second leg in 2009, I only see Belgium and Germany being HEAVILY strategically scheduled. That's FIVE markets in total. That's hardly ANYWHERE NEAR what U2 has done on the 360 tour...

Additionally, Madonna only visited 18 markets in North America, only 6 of which were in stadiums. That's what I call a heavily strategically scheduled tour.

I see HALF of the 18 markets she played in 2008 as being HEAVILY strategically scheduled (Mexico City, Miami, Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Vancouver, Denver & Philadelphia). That's NOT ANYWHERE NEAR what U2 has done on the 360 tour...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I'm not forgetting ANYTHING. Not ever playing a market, doesn't necessarily mean that it will boost your gross otherwise.

Well, thats what you say for anyone thats not U2. But of course your very carful to mention U2 not playing Perth for 14 years but always neglect to mention such gaps when discussing any other artist. Thats a clear sign of unobjectivity.

Every person in the industry and promoter knows that when a popular active artist neglects visiting certain area's of the world that it does boost demand. Thats clearly the case with an artist that has the level of exposure as Madonna.

But that factor does not enter into your thinking. U2 360 clearly outgrosses what Madonna did in 2008, but you still insist automatically that Madonna is the larger draw. Definitely a stretch considering Madonna's results were somewhat inflated because she had not been there in 15 years.

Uh, no.

1. Inflation from 2008 to 2011 increased about 4%.

2. Her accumulative album sales total has increased 5-10% since 2008.

3. Also, Madonna played TWO MARKETS in Brazil. U2 only played ONE.

4. And finally, Madonna did not utilize an ARENA opener.




Incorrect, as shown above.

1. and 2. : Well what are you saying Madonna's GROSS for South America would be in early 2011 as opposed to what it was in 2008?

3. U2 only played 3 shows, while Madonna played 5 shows. Yet, U2 grossed $32 million, while Madonna only grossed $22 million. Rio is 10 hours from Sao Paulo in terms of driving. It is indeed a seperate market, so the fact that U2 did not play Rio hurts them. Its likely that they could not work out a deal for a stadium in Rio or also the Claw had problems fitting.

4. True, but once again Madonna had not been to South America in 15 years which essentially negates that factor. Pluse was only a theater act in Chile and Argentina.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Pink Floyd's A Momentary Lapse Of Reason tour Australian leg and The Stones' Voodoo Lounge tour Australian leg are two examples of virtually no strategic scheduling.

I NEVER stated it wasn't utilized on a smaller scale. I said it hasn't been utilized for virtually EVERY market on one tour, like on the 360 tour.

LOL LOL LOL!!!!

Ok so, because U2 360 does not visit Adelaide, that means 360 in Australia is strategically scheduled, but the fact that Momentary Lapse of Reason Tour and Voodoo Lounge tour each spend a single night in Adelaide, those tours of Australia are NOT strategically scheduled?

LOL, who knew that whether an artist played Adelaide or not could have such a massive impact on total gross and attendance in Australia.


Again, the two tours that you site as not being strategically scheduled in Australia just play the five standard markets of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You're blurring the lines AGAIN by asking too many questions. So, I'll have to simplify it for you, AS USUAL:

Only 4 or 5 markets on the UK/European legs of the A Bigger Bang tour were strategically scheduled. So, if both legs had been HEAVILY strategically scheduled (ala the 360 tour), the total gross for both legs would've EASILY been over $300 million, instead of the $216 million they did gross WITHOUT heavily utilizing it. I've already given you an estimate for the Stones' next tour, if it happened to be in 2013, with 110 dates, heavy strategic scheduling and utilizing relatively strong openers. So, since you've already asked enough questions, I'll let you figure out what the total of their UK/European dates would be, considering the aforementioned factors...

Well, how would you have strategically scheduled the Stones A Bigger Bang Tour for Europe using the two legs, one in summer 2006 and one in summer 2007?

How many markets would you of had the Stones play over those two legs?
How many shows over the two legs?

Where would you have them play on each leg?

Lets take Paris for example. How would you have been able to get the Stones to gross MORE from their shows in Paris through Strategic Scheduling and how much more? They played Paris once in the summer of 2006 and once in the summer of 2007.


Again, if you don't play certain markets on the first leg, that may indeed boost demand for the remaining markets, but its not clear that the overall gross for that leg would be any different because while the gross increases for certain markets, its wiped out completely for the markets that don't get played. Those two factors negate each other and the gross for the first leg or the 2nd leg comes out the same.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Big thanks to everyone who has contributed facts and information to this thread as I like to see the boxscores come in on the way to U2's 360 tour becoming as big as it has. I think I can speak for everyone when I say that there is an argument centered around one member getting in the way of a really useful and informative thread, and I am a bit baffled at the guys that keep replying when it is clearly a massive windup, and posting replies just adds fuel to the fire. If everyone was just to ignore certain posts and get on with genuine discussion then it wouldn't take us all so long to find the facts and information we are actually interested in.

There is no magic equation to how much support acts bring in terms of attendance and revenue but the vast majority of the time it will be irrelevant. Some posters know this but keep arguing it as if it needs defending!

This term "strategic scheduling" has been invented purely for this thread! The music industry is a business of course there is strategy, money is the bottom line for promoters and labels and they want to maximise profit wherever possible, for ALL their acts...Some posts have suggested that it is a new business model and that other acts just throw together their tour dates with no logic or reason at all! Again, people keep arguing back at these claims when they know how absurd the idea is, can we just give up on it and move on?

There is a number of other issues that seem to be argued back and forth, but I literally can't understand why people are wasting their time responding to them - heck why am I even taking my time to write this? I am just PLEADING to get this thread back to being about facts and genuine insight and info, I really enjoy reading the numbers and stats behind these tours and its being ruined by trying to proove one poster wrong, when I'd be stunned if there were any observers of the thread that agreed with the claims being made.

Why hasn't a moderator come in and sorted this out. I am finding it really offensive being bombarded with opinions as facts, opinions as scientific equations, being told "YOU KNOW THAT" and seeing people getting mocked with little smilies over and over again. There is some actual useful stuff on this thread being hidden by this childish argument that some valuable posters are being drawn into - let's just ignore it and continue with adult posts and thoughts on these tours - no matter how many times we see a big blue font argue with every point that is made pro-u2, just scroll past it and move on. Stop feeding the monster, PLEASE!

Facts:

U2 360 is the highest grossing tour in history at $580 million and there is still an entire leg left. Most estimates put the final tour gross between $730 million and $750 million.

U2 360 has the highest average attendance per show in history, currently at roughly 66,000 per night. This average should remain steady even with the additional 25 shows left

U2 360 has the highest per show gross in history, currently at roughly $6.58 million. This average should remain steady even with the additional 25 shows left

Had U2 360 continued on to Asia and the heavily rumored 3rd "mini" Euro leg, this tour would have easily grossed in the vicinity of $850 million.

 

[CosmoKramer]

U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE

GROSS: $580,454,297
ATTENDANCE: 5,570,560
Average Gross: $6,828,874
Average Attendance: 65,536
Average Ticket Price: $104.20
Shows: 85
Sellouts: 85

Madonna -Sticky & Sweet Tour 2008-2009

GROSS: $407,713,266
ATTENDANCE: 3,545,899
Average Gross: $4,796,626
Average Attendance: 41,716
Average Ticket Price: $114.98
Shows: 85
Sellouts: 84


Each played 85 shows world wide.....

 

[CosmoKramer]

I see HALF of the 18 markets she played in 2008 as being HEAVILY strategically scheduled (Mexico City, Miami, Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Vancouver, Denver & Philadelphia). That's NOT ANYWHERE NEAR what U2 has done on the 360 tour...

But "strategic scheduling" is a completely new concept created by and for U2 in 2009? You keep getting caught in your own "logic" and lies.

The story is the same: You make an excuse for U2 grossing X, then facts come out showing that you were wrong, so you "tweek" your logic.

You originally predict that U2's next tour would make $400 million over 100 shows, when they basically make that in a year, you use as an excuse "strategic scheduling". You then adjust your prediction to $600 million over 100 shows. Now that U2 360 is clearly going to make over $660 million by their 100th show, you use openers as an excuse and assign, arbitrarily, a 10% deduction to U2 360's gross....

 

[beLIEve]

I can't believe Henry Rollins is wasting his time on this website and calling himself "Moggio". Kinda ruined what was a small community of U2 chart watchers. Go away for a while and come back to find this guy trolling my beloved Interference site.

It's not all bad...the lengths he/she goes to in trying to downplay the world's biggest, and IMO best, live act are pretty funny.

Hopefully, new album drops soon and we can break even more records for #1 debuts in 30-40 countries around the planet.

With the quality of music that's coming out these days being what it is, I've come to appreciate U2 more than ever...AB from start to finish sounded great yesterday, just like it did in 1991. What a band. What an album. Best live act on the planet on top of that...

 

[Moggio]

Well, thats what you say for anyone thats not U2.

No. It can apply to many.

But of course your very carful to mention U2 not playing Perth for 14 years but always neglect to mention such gaps when discussing any other artist. Thats a clear sign of unobjectivity.

What does U2 not playing Perth for 14 years have to do with not EVER playing a market (which is what I was talking about above)?

Every person in the industry and promoter knows that when a popular active artist neglects visiting certain area's of the world that it does boost demand. Thats clearly the case with an artist that has the level of exposure as Madonna.

Like I said, that's not necessarily true.

But that factor does not enter into your thinking. U2 360 clearly outgrosses what Madonna did in 2008, but you still insist automatically that Madonna is the larger draw. Definitely a stretch considering Madonna's results were somewhat inflated because she had not been there in 15 years.

You're right in that U2 just outgrossed Madonna's South American stats. But you're not right in saying U2 is a larger draw than she is in South America TODAY, for the obvious reasons I've already gone over.

1. and 2. : Well what are you saying Madonna's GROSS for South America would be in early 2011 as opposed to what it was in 2008?

I've already given you the info. Figure it out, genius.

3. U2 only played 3 shows, while Madonna played 5 shows. Yet, U2 grossed $32 million, while Madonna only grossed $22 million. Rio is 10 hours from Sao Paulo in terms of driving. It is indeed a seperate market, so the fact that U2 did not play Rio hurts them. Its likely that they could not work out a deal for a stadium in Rio or also the Claw had problems fitting.

Madonna ONLY grossed $22 million?!

U2 skipping Rio boosted Sao Paulo's draw. And so did Muse.

U2 is a larger draw in Brazil than Madonna is...but not overall in South America.

4. True, but once again Madonna had not been to South America in 15 years which essentially negates that factor. Pluse was only a theater act in Chile and Argentina.

Like I said, Madonna not playing South America before 2008 does not necessarily boost her draw there.

Who's Pluse? If you're referring to Muse...then they're currently an ARENA draw worldwide (and even a STADIUM draw in some markets).

 

[Moggio]

LOL LOL LOL!!!!

Ok so, because U2 360 does not visit Adelaide, that means 360 in Australia is strategically scheduled, but the fact that Momentary Lapse of Reason Tour and Voodoo Lounge tour each spend a single night in Adelaide, those tours of Australia are NOT strategically scheduled?

LOL, who knew that whether an artist played Adelaide or not could have such a massive impact on total gross and attendance in Australia.


Again, the two tours that you site as not being strategically scheduled in Australia just play the five standard markets of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth.

You seem to be forgetting that since U2 did not play New Zealand on PopMart, that also boosted U2's draw in Australia. Adelaide wasn't the only factor there...

 

[Moggio]

Well, how would you have strategically scheduled the Stones A Bigger Bang Tour for Europe using the two legs, one in summer 2006 and one in summer 2007?

How many markets would you of had the Stones play over those two legs?
How many shows over the two legs?

Where would you have them play on each leg?

Lets take Paris for example. How would you have been able to get the Stones to gross MORE from their shows in Paris through Strategic Scheduling and how much more? They played Paris once in the summer of 2006 and once in the summer of 2007.


Again, if you don't play certain markets on the first leg, that may indeed boost demand for the remaining markets, but its not clear that the overall gross for that leg would be any different because while the gross increases for certain markets, its wiped out completely for the markets that don't get played. Those two factors negate each other and the gross for the first leg or the 2nd leg comes out the same.

Like I've already said, you ask too many questions (which I'm sick too death of). And I've already given you estimations. So, figure it out for yourself, genius...

 

[Moggio]

Facts:

U2 360 is the highest grossing tour in history at $580 million and there is still an entire leg left. Most estimates put the final tour gross between $730 million and $750 million.

U2 360 has the highest average attendance per show in history, currently at roughly 66,000 per night. This average should remain steady even with the additional 25 shows left

U2 360 has the highest per show gross in history, currently at roughly $6.58 million. This average should remain steady even with the additional 25 shows left

Had U2 360 continued on to Asia and the heavily rumored 3rd "mini" Euro leg, this tour would have easily grossed in the vicinity of $850 million.

FACTS:

THE 360 tour is THE most padded tour in concert history. This is because U2 are:

~ HEAVILY strategically scheduling this tour (A NEW BUSINESS MODEL) in order to help bring the stadiums they're playing to capacity or as close to capacity as possible
~ mostly utilizing ARENA draws as openers

NONE of your above statements would be reality today, if the above two major factors I've listed weren't in place...and hence U2's average attendance/gross and overall tour gross would be about 2/3 of what your above stats list otherwise.

Oh...and here's ANOTHER FACT:

The Rolling Stones are STILL the largest active drawing band on the planet.

U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE

GROSS: $580,454,297
ATTENDANCE: 5,570,560
Average Gross: $6,828,874
Average Attendance: 65,536
Average Ticket Price: $104.20
Shows: 85
Sellouts: 85

Madonna -Sticky & Sweet Tour 2008-2009

GROSS: $407,713,266
ATTENDANCE: 3,545,899
Average Gross: $4,796,626
Average Attendance: 41,716
Average Ticket Price: $114.98
Shows: 85
Sellouts: 84


Each played 85 shows world wide.....

I see you still haven't read this thread thoroughly?

But "strategic scheduling" is a completely new concept created by and for U2 in 2009? You keep getting caught in your own "logic" and lies.

I NEVER said strategic scheduling didn't exist before on a SMALLER SCALE. You keep ignoring that.

The story is the same: You make an excuse for U2 grossing X, then facts come out showing that you were wrong, so you "tweek" your logic.

You originally predict that U2's next tour would make $400 million over 100 shows, when they basically make that in a year, you use as an excuse "strategic scheduling". You then adjust your prediction to $600 million over 100 shows. Now that U2 360 is clearly going to make over $660 million by their 100th show, you use openers as an excuse and assign, arbitrarily, a 10% deduction to U2 360's gross....

I've given perfectly truthful and logical responses to your garbage above, pages ago. Yet you CONTINUE to ignore those responses and CONTINUE to post the same BS above. Why is that?