Biggest Grossing Tours Of All Time

[Maoilbheannacht]

So what? Madonna GROSSES more than U2 in most markets worldwide that they have both played in. Period.

:

You've yet to accurately list a single case where this is actually true.

Yes.

Ireland is only one small country. I can't believe you're using that as an example

She had never played there before in her career. If she was such a strong drawing artist, stronger than U2, The Police or the Stones, she should have soldout. She played the Slane Castle concert that usually sells out almost every year regardless of who is on the bill. Yet, she fails to sellout with an attendance of only 62,000 when the max capacity of the venue is 78,000. Her Gross was $6.5 million. The Police nearly doubled that gross figure in 2007 with their show at Croke Park. U2 nearly quadrupled it.

Promoters hold back the best seats in the house for scalpers/brokers, VIPs, etc. ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about the concert business knows that. It's a well-known fact.

mmmm, thats what I meant by the fact that sometimes small batches of tickets are released later. Try reading the response first before you answer it.

That's because her ticket prices are HIGHER. Which essentially means, that the shows will take longer to fill up

The tickets that are still available in Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia are $98 DOLLAR TICKETS! These tickets are NOT HIGHER PRICED THAN U2 TICKETS!!!!! In San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, and a few other shows, there are tickets as low as $55 DOLLARS available!

Madonna only has one arena show in Philadelphia. Yet, she has FAILED to sellout the show in one of the largest markets in the United States. There is not even a show in the nearby Baltimore/Washington DC market which should make a sellout in Philadelphia even easier. Yet, there are still tickets available at $98 dollars and $55 dollars for an Arena show that is not even selling seats behind the stage!!!!!

No, they weren't. For reasons already stated.

In terms of the tickets made available to the public on the first day of sale, all 3 concerts at the Amsterdam Arena soldout within hours of going on sale. Thousands of fans attempting to get tickets the first day they went on sale were UNABLE TO GET THEM!

No. The GROSS is. For the ONE MILLIONTH TIME.

Arthur Fogal, one of the main promoters at Live Nation does not agree with you.

She still grossed over $8.1 million there. She's hugely popular in that country.

Thats irrelevant to what is being discussed in the case of the Netherlands.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Promoters hold back the best seats in the house for scalpers/brokers, VIPs, etc. Don't you know ANYTHING about the concert business?



The Forum Los Angeles 40,044 / 40,044 (sellout) $7,686,380

MGM Grand Garden Las Vegas 27,528 / 27,528 (sellout) $7,257,750

HP Pavilion at San Jose San Jose 27,024 / 27,024 (sellout) $4,761,555

Staples Center Los Angeles 14,158 / 14,158 (sellout) $2,804,583

Save Mart Center Fresno 20,154 / 20,154 (sellout) $3,749,800

Glendale Arena Phoenix 28,820 / 28,820 (sellout) $4,890,090

United Center Chicago 52,000 / 52,000 (sellout) $9,271,790

Bell Centre Montreal 34,940 / 34,940 (sellout) $5,670,150

Hartford Civic Center Hartford 21,558 / 21,558 (sellout) $3,451,235

Madison Square Garden New York 91,841 / 91,841 (sellout) $16,507,855

TD Banknorth Garden Boston 36,741 / 36,741 (sellout) $6,337,115

Wachovia Center Philadelphia 29,749 / 29,749 (sellout) $4,639,775

Boardwalk Hall Atlantic City 12,322 / 12,322 (sellout) $3,246,100

American Airlines Arena Miami 30,410 / 30,410 (sellout) $5,568,485



------------------------------------------------------



You have to be joking?!

As I have already shown, U2 outgrossed Madonna in the New York City area and they did not even fully meet demand with the shows they played. They also outgrossed her in Los Angeles, the San Jose/San Francisco/Oakland area, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia when you total up all the shows they played in these markets in 2005.

That leaves on the following markets:

MGM Grand Garden Las Vegas 27,528 / 27,528 (sellout) $7,257,750
Save Mart Center Fresno 20,154 / 20,154 (sellout) $3,749,800
Glendale Arena Phoenix 28,820 / 28,820 (sellout) $4,890,090
Bell Centre Montreal 34,940 / 34,940 (sellout) $5,670,150
Hartford Civic Center Hartford 21,558 / 21,558 (sellout) $3,451,235
Boardwalk Hall Atlantic City 12,322 / 12,322 (sellout) $3,246,100
American Airlines Arena Miami 30,410 / 30,410 (sellout) $5,568,485

U2 did not play Fresno or Atlantic City so those markets cannot even be compared. The other 5 are the only ones you could even make a minimal argument and thats only if you assume that U2 just barely met demand in each of those markets, which is obviously unlikely given that each show in those markets soldout its publically available tickets within hours of going on sale.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

What you don't understand is that a certain percentage of fans return to see artists, if they return to their market months later on the same tour. It doesn't really matter when tickets go on sale in this case, as long as it was after the initial show's on sale dates...
:

It matters because all the tickets for the tour essentially went on sale at the same time before a single show was played. The effect you speak of occurs when artist puts a show on sale in the winter that occurs in the Spring, and then months later in the summer puts a show on sale in that same market that occurs in the fall.

But when everything is going on sale at once before any shows on the tour have been played, its much closer to being the same as the impact of just a single big show in that market. The number of multiple attendees is reduced when the on sales for so many shows are close together. The number of individuals that have money on hand to purchase tickets to multiple shows at once is less than those who would have the money to purchase tickets for multiple shows that have on sale dates that are spread out by 5 to 6 months.

At the point in time their NYC metro area shows happened, they met demand.

Besides just claiming that, what evidence do you have to back that up?

Yes, she was. Not touring for seven years is considered inactive.

The year was 1997. The last year Madonna had toured before that was 1993. Thats FOUR YEARS, NOT SEVEN YEARS! Not touring for four years is not considered to be "inactive".

That's not what he said.

Michael Cohl stated in 1997 that the only artist that could do more business on the road than U2 was the Rolling Stones.

The stats speak for themselves.

Not only can you not name a single major industry figure that agrees with you on the idea that Madonna is a bigger touring artist than U2, but you can't show a single one that would agree with your WILD interpretation of the statistics.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I said PROBABLY an $11 million gross.



So what? You're forgetting that Madonna's Chicago show prices are between $55-$575 this year. She'll probably still gross in the ballpark of $10-$11 million once the boxscores are released. And that's what counts.

You said $11 million dollars in gross, so thats what were going to compare it to when the figures come out. I'd say, if your lucky, she might hit the $6 million figure with those two shows which is NO WHERE near your predicted firgure of $11 million dollars. We will know for sure in a few weeks.

By the way, Madonna has four ticket price levels for her Chicago shows which are the following:

$350
$165
$95
$55

Tickets still remain available at ALL price levels for the second show!

 

[Moggio]

You've yet to accurately list a single case where this is actually true.

She had never played there before in her career. If she was such a strong drawing artist, stronger than U2, The Police or the Stones, she should have soldout. She played the Slane Castle concert that usually sells out almost every year regardless of who is on the bill. Yet, she fails to sellout with an attendance of only 62,000 when the max capacity of the venue is 78,000. Her Gross was $6.5 million. The Police nearly doubled that gross figure in 2007 with their show at Croke Park. U2 nearly quadrupled it.

Only 62,000 fans saw Madonna? She only grossed $6.5 million? Listen to yourself!

Her stats are pretty damn good considering Ireland is a TINY market.

mmmm, thats what I meant by the fact that sometimes small batches of tickets are released later. Try reading the response first before you answer it.

I'm not talking about later. I'm talking about the FACT that they're held back strictly for scalpers/brokers, VIPs, etc, even before shows go on sale.

The tickets that are still available in Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia are $98 DOLLAR TICKETS! These tickets are NOT HIGHER PRICED THAN U2 TICKETS!!!!! In San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, and a few other shows, there are tickets as low as $55 DOLLARS available!

You're just not getting, are you? Tickets are ALWAYS available.

Madonna only has one arena show in Philadelphia. Yet, she has FAILED to sellout the show in one of the largest markets in the United States. There is not even a show in the nearby Baltimore/Washington DC market which should make a sellout in Philadelphia even easier. Yet, there are still tickets available at $98 dollars and $55 dollars for an Arena show that is not even selling seats behind the stage!!!!!

What are you talking about? She has a show in Atlantic City - which is virtually the SAME market.

In terms of the tickets made available to the public on the first day of sale, all 3 concerts at the Amsterdam Arena soldout within hours of going on sale. Thousands of fans attempting to get tickets the first day they went on sale were UNABLE TO GET THEM!

You're still not gettin' it...

Arthur Fogal, one of the main promoters at Live Nation does not agree with you.

Really? Part of Arthur's job is to create hype for a tour. What's he going to say...the tour is selling badly? Get ANY promoters to admit that...and I'll be impressed. Promoters will NEVER admit that a tour is not selling well. They'll always give another reason as to why shows are cancelled, postponed, etc. And no, I'm not referring to the fact that U2's tours haven't sold well. It's just a general comment.

Thats irrelevant to what is being discussed in the case of the Netherlands.

 

[Moggio]

As I have already shown, U2 outgrossed Madonna in the New York City area

Not true. As I have already shown you, Madonna outgrossed U2 in the NYC metro area. She performed NO return engagements. U2 DID.

...and they did not even fully meet demand with the shows they played.

Again, not true.

They also outgrossed her in Los Angeles, the San Jose/San Francisco/Oakland area, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia when you total up all the shows they played in these markets in 2005.

U2 did return engagements in ALL of the above markets you've just listed...Madonna DID NOT. That means up to 40-50% of the U2 fans who saw them in the spring of 2005 returned to see U2 again in the fall of 2005 in those markets...

That leaves on the following markets:

MGM Grand Garden Las Vegas 27,528 / 27,528 (sellout) $7,257,750
Save Mart Center Fresno 20,154 / 20,154 (sellout) $3,749,800
Glendale Arena Phoenix 28,820 / 28,820 (sellout) $4,890,090
Bell Centre Montreal 34,940 / 34,940 (sellout) $5,670,150
Hartford Civic Center Hartford 21,558 / 21,558 (sellout) $3,451,235
Boardwalk Hall Atlantic City 12,322 / 12,322 (sellout) $3,246,100
American Airlines Arena Miami 30,410 / 30,410 (sellout) $5,568,485

No. It leaves the ENTIRE LIST:

The Forum Los Angeles 40,044 / 40,044 (sellout) $7,686,380

MGM Grand Garden Las Vegas 27,528 / 27,528 (sellout) $7,257,750

HP Pavilion at San Jose San Jose 27,024 / 27,024 (sellout) $4,761,555

Staples Center Los Angeles 14,158 / 14,158 (sellout) $2,804,583

Save Mart Center Fresno 20,154 / 20,154 (sellout) $3,749,800

Glendale Arena Phoenix 28,820 / 28,820 (sellout) $4,890,090

United Center Chicago 52,000 / 52,000 (sellout) $9,271,790

Bell Centre Montreal 34,940 / 34,940 (sellout) $5,670,150

Hartford Civic Center Hartford 21,558 / 21,558 (sellout) $3,451,235

Madison Square Garden New York 91,841 / 91,841 (sellout) $16,507,855

TD Banknorth Garden Boston 36,741 / 36,741 (sellout) $6,337,115

Wachovia Center Philadelphia 29,749 / 29,749 (sellout) $4,639,775

Boardwalk Hall Atlantic City 12,322 / 12,322 (sellout) $3,246,100

American Airlines Arena Miami 30,410 / 30,410 (sellout) $5,568,485

U2 did not play Fresno or Atlantic City so those markets cannot even be compared.

Huh? Fresno is a stones throw away from the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area. They're virtually the same market. If you look at Madonna's boxscores from her 2004 tour in the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area, she grossed more than she did in 2006 there because she didn't perform in any other central Californian markets...

Also, like I said above, Atlantic City & Philadelphia are virtually the same market.

Who the hell are you trying to fool?

The other 5 are the only ones you could even make a minimal argument and thats only if you assume that U2 just barely met demand in each of those markets, which is obviously unlikely given that each show in those markets soldout its publically available tickets within hours of going on sale.

You are so in denial, it's not even funny...

 

[Moggio]

It matters because all the tickets for the tour essentially went on sale at the same time before a single show was played. The effect you speak of occurs when artist puts a show on sale in the winter that occurs in the Spring, and then months later in the summer puts a show on sale in that same market that occurs in the fall.

But when everything is going on sale at once before any shows on the tour have been played, its much closer to being the same as the impact of just a single big show in that market. The number of multiple attendees is reduced when the on sales for so many shows are close together. The number of individuals that have money on hand to purchase tickets to multiple shows at once is less than those who would have the money to purchase tickets for multiple shows that have on sale dates that are spread out by 5 to 6 months.

That's not true and YOU KNOW IT. All the shows didn't go on sale at "essentially the same time". Keep spinnin' it ...

Promoters already know what demand is going to be before shows go on sale. For example, do you think they're going to book several shows in the same market all at once, just for the hell of it, and risk taking a major financial loss if they weren't sure?

Keep tryin'...

Besides just claiming that, what evidence do you have to back that up?

I've studied the concert business for 18 years. I've looked at thousands upon thousands of boxscores and have studied demand for just about any artist you can name. Why?

The year was 1997. The last year Madonna had toured before that was 1993. Thats FOUR YEARS, NOT SEVEN YEARS! Not touring for four years is not considered to be "inactive".

My point was, at that point in time, Cohl obviously knew Madonna wasn't interesting in tour again, since he probably offered her tens of millions of dollars to tour again during this period...

Michael Cohl stated in 1997 that the only artist that could do more business on the road than U2 was the Rolling Stones.

That wasn't the quote.

Not only can you not name a single major industry figure that agrees with you on the idea that Madonna is a bigger touring artist than U2, but you can't show a single one that would agree with your WILD interpretation of the statistics.

So major industry figures are reading this board? Please. The numbers don't lie. Overall, Madonna is a larger draw worldwide than U2 is. FACT.



Not only do you know very litte about the concert business, you don't seem to understand that attendance can be adjusted based on what the venue capacities & ticket prices are set at, in relation to what the GROSS is. And that the GROSS is what is utilized when measuring an artists' drawing power. Amongst a plethora of other crucial factors, you also don't seem to realize that return engagements are structured to bring back a percentage of fans who already saw the artist(s) on the same tour in the same market, months later...

This is text book stuff...

 

[Moggio]

You said $11 million dollars in gross, so thats what were going to compare it to when the figures come out. I'd say, if your lucky, she might hit the $6 million figure with those two shows which is NO WHERE near your predicted firgure of $11 million dollars. We will know for sure in a few weeks.

The gross should be in the neighborhood of $10-$11 million. If it's any less than that, then she's touring too frequently these days and hence her demand is becoming too saturated...

By the way, Madonna has four ticket price levels for her Chicago shows which are the following:

$350
$165
$95
$55

Tickets still remain available at ALL price levels for the second show!

No, she has six-tier pricing for her Chicago shows this year:

$575 (VIP package)
$390 (VIP package)
$350
$165
$95
$55

 

[genesis199125]

moggio, i think when mosquito was asking about the boxscore data for Michael Jackson's HIStory Tour, he meant the INDIVIDUAL boxscores for each city. I also wanted to know the same thing. Have you really been studying the industry for 18 years, because so far, the figures you've been posting can easily be found on Wikipedia.

 

[Moggio]

moggio, i think when mosquito was asking about the boxscore data for Michael Jackson's HIStory Tour, he meant the INDIVIDUAL boxscores for each city. I also wanted to know the same thing.

I know. That's what I found. Just trying to help.

Have you really been studying the industry for 18 years...

Yes.

...because so far, the figures you've been posting can easily be found on Wikipedia.

So can plenty of pieces of info. So what?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Only 62,000 fans saw Madonna? She only grossed $6.5 million? Listen to yourself!

Her stats are pretty damn good considering Ireland is a TINY market.

:

Ireland has the 4th highest per capita GDP in the world. While there are only 5.7 million people on the Island, they have plenty of money which is why U2 and the Police have scored some of their best gross figures in Ireland. The Police got the highest gross figure of their entire career, nearly $12 million dollars, from their one show at Croke Park in 2007.

Madonna's figure is 30% of U2's, and only a little more than half of the Police figure. But more importantly, it was Madonna's FIRST SHOW EVER in Ireland, after a career spanning over 2 decades.

You're just not getting, are you? Tickets are ALWAYS available.

Well, whats your explanation for several hundred people not being able to get into a Dave Matthews concert at Hershey Park and having to spend the concert outside the stadium trying to listen to the music?

"Tickets are always available"? You need to seriously think about that statement.

Really? Part of Arthur's job is to create hype for a tour. What's he going to say...the tour is selling badly? Get ANY promoters to admit that...and I'll be impressed. Promoters will NEVER admit that a tour is not selling well. They'll always give another reason as to why shows are cancelled, postponed, etc

Well, Arthur's not claiming that Madonna is the biggest drawing artist in the world, because he knows she is not. His last comments about
U2's Vertigo tour indicated that he wished the band had been willing to do more shows because they had left so much demand untapped.

And no, I'm not referring to the fact that U2's tours haven't sold well.

Only the uninformed could claim that U2's tours have not sold well.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Not true. As I have already shown you, Madonna outgrossed U2 in the NYC metro area. She performed NO return engagements. U2 DID.



Again, not true.



U2 did return engagements in ALL of the above markets you've just listed...Madonna DID NOT. That means up to 40-50% of the U2 fans who saw them in the spring of 2005 returned to see U2 again in the fall of 2005 in those markets...

Ok fine, lets use your questionable formula for return engagements and assume that U2 met all demand in the New York City market which they didn't.

As you will see, even if we use these factors that you have set up, U2 still beats Madonna in the New York City market.



U2's New York City area GROSS in 2005 was: $19,262,989

3 SPRING SHOWS: $5,745,152

7 FALL SHOWS: $13,517,837

You claimed 40% to 50% of the people who saw them in the Spring went to see them in the Fall as well. So, lets subtract 45% from the Spring total of $5,745,152 and we get $3,159,834.

So, 7 shows in the FALL at $13,517,837 + $3,159,834 from the Spring = $16,677,670

Using YOUR formula U2 finish with a gross of $16,677,670

Madonna's GROSS was $16,507,855


So even by your own formula, U2 still comes out on top in the New York City area.

Huh? Fresno is a stones throw away from the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area. They're virtually the same market. If you look at Madonna's boxscores from her 2004 tour in the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area, she grossed more than she did in 2006 there because she didn't perform in any other central Californian markets...

Also, like I said above, Atlantic City & Philadelphia are virtually the same market.

Who the hell are you trying to fool?

Do you consider San Diego to be virtually the same market as Los Angeles?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

That's not true and YOU KNOW IT. All the shows didn't go on sale at "essentially the same time". Keep spinnin' it ...
...

I know because I bought tickets to multiple shows. The first on sale date was the last week in January and the last on sale date was the first week in March. The entire tour, 78 shows, were put on sale over a 6 week period. Even when an artist is doing just 1 big single leg of a tour, they still stagger the on sale dates for the shows over several weeks. Yes, essentially the same time especially considering what were talking about.

Promoters already know what demand is going to be before shows go on sale. For example, do you think they're going to book several shows in the same market all at once, just for the hell of it, and risk taking a major financial loss if they weren't sure?

Promoters have estimates which are sometimes wrong. Its a business and yes, people do lose money, every year in fact.

I've studied the concert business for 18 years. I've looked at thousands upon thousands of boxscores and have studied demand for just about any artist you can name. Why?

Many people on this board have been doing the same thing for even longer. The evidence I asked for was a source, something or someone BESIDES YOURSELF claiming the same thing.

My point was, at that point in time, Cohl obviously knew Madonna wasn't interesting in tour again, since he probably offered her tens of millions of dollars to tour again during this period...

Prove it. What evidence do you have that the above is so. When did Madonna ever state that she was definitely not going to tour again until 2001 back in the mid 1990s?

That wasn't the quote.

That was essentially the qoute, just paraphrased a little. Same thing though.

So major industry figures are reading this board? Please. The numbers don't lie. Overall, Madonna is a larger draw worldwide than U2 is. FACT.

Don't recall ever claiming that major industry figures read the board. I just asked you to site a major industry figure that agrees with you on your wild interpretation of concert statistics.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

The gross should be in the neighborhood of $10-$11 million. If it's any less than that, then she's touring too frequently these days and hence her demand is becoming too saturated...

What would you consider to be, "touring too frequently"? Give an example.

 

[genesis199125]

i have to admit, im pretty impressed at how madonna is able to pull in such huge crowds, considering that no other female artists can match her in concert grosses and attendance, let alone other male rock star contemporaries. I don't necessarily agree with moggio on her being a bigger draw than U2, but she is still one of the most successful live acts i think. No other female artist have drawn crowds like her since Tina Turner, who is still going strong at 69, i might add, and is still selling out arenas, if not stadiums anymore.

 

[Moggio]

Ok fine, lets use your questionable formula for return engagements and assume that U2 met all demand in the New York City market which they didn't.

As you will see, even if we use these factors that you have set up, U2 still beats Madonna in the New York City market.

U2's New York City area GROSS in 2005 was: $19,262,989

3 SPRING SHOWS: $5,745,152

7 FALL SHOWS: $13,517,837

You claimed 40% to 50% of the people who saw them in the Spring went to see them in the Fall as well. So, lets subtract 45% from the Spring total of $5,745,152 and we get $3,159,834.

So, 7 shows in the FALL at $13,517,837 + $3,159,834 from the Spring = $16,677,670

Using YOUR formula U2 finish with a gross of $16,677,670

Madonna's GROSS was $16,507,855


So even by your own formula, U2 still comes out on top in the New York City area.

Wrong. U2 did TWO sets of returns in the NYC metro area on the Vertigo tour that were SPREAD OUT. One set in October. One set in November.

Nice try.

Do you consider San Diego to be virtually the same market as Los Angeles?

Why?

 

[Moggio]

Ireland has the 4th highest per capita GDP in the world. While there are only 5.7 million people on the Island, they have plenty of money which is why U2 and the Police have scored some of their best gross figures in Ireland. The Police got the highest gross figure of their entire career, nearly $12 million dollars, from their one show at Croke Park in 2007.

Madonna's figure is 30% of U2's, and only a little more than half of the Police figure. But more importantly, it was Madonna's FIRST SHOW EVER in Ireland, after a career spanning over 2 decades.

The reason why The Police & U2 outgrossed Madonna in Ireland is because they're more popular than her in Ireland.

Well, whats your explanation for several hundred people not being able to get into a Dave Matthews concert at Hershey Park and having to spend the concert outside the stadium trying to listen to the music?

Did you ask every single one of them whether or not they were willing to pay to get it, or if they just wanted to listen to the music from outside?

"Tickets are always available"? You need to seriously think about that statement.

You've got a LOT to learn.

Well, Arthur's not claiming that Madonna is the biggest drawing artist in the world, because he knows she is not. His last comments about
U2's Vertigo tour indicated that he wished the band had been willing to do more shows because they had left so much demand untapped.

If what you're saying is true and U2 really didn't meet demand at that point in time on the Vertigo tour, then today U2 would be popular enough to schedule a coast to coast STADIUM tour of North America for their next tour, considering the kind of prices they're charging nowadays.

But we both know that's not going to happen...

 

[Moggio]

I know because I bought tickets to multiple shows. The first on sale date was the last week in January and the last on sale date was the first week in March. The entire tour, 78 shows, were put on sale over a 6 week period. Even when an artist is doing just 1 big single leg of a tour, they still stagger the on sale dates for the shows over several weeks. Yes, essentially the same time especially considering what were talking about.

No, six weeks is not essentially the same time. And not all of the shows went on sale over a six week period.

Promoters have estimates which are sometimes wrong. Its a business and yes, people do lose money, every year in fact.

My point was, that with MAJOR tours & promoters like this, it rarely ever happens. You could use PopMart as an example. But in the end, U2 still made millions from that tour.

Many people on this board have been doing the same thing for even longer. The evidence I asked for was a source, something or someone BESIDES YOURSELF claiming the same thing.

If I went into a extremely detailed response (which would take a very long time) about concert demand formulas that are utilized by promoters, you'd find yet another way to spin it. So why should I bother?

Prove it. What evidence do you have that the above is so. When did Madonna ever state that she was definitely not going to tour again until 2001 back in the mid 1990s?

I didn't say that. And no is proof needed. Madonna didn't tour for nearly 8 years. It's pretty obvious she wasn't interested in touring at this point in time.

That was essentially the qoute, just paraphrased a little. Same thing though.

Nope.

Don't recall ever claiming that major industry figures read the board. I just asked you to site a major industry figure that agrees with you on your wild interpretation of concert statistics.

You stated that none of them agree with me. So, in order for them to agree or disagree with me, they'd have to be reading my posts on this board. And just because there is no statement from promoters that we've read regarding whether or not Madonna is a larger draw than U2, doesn't necessarily mean she isn't. The numbers don't lie.

And if my interpretation if the concert business is so "wild", then why is it a piece of cake for me to score below face value tix to concerts, even if they're listed as "sold out"? I have saved over $500 in the past two and a half years doing so...and NO ARTIST is immune to this strategy.

 

[Moggio]

What would you consider to be, "touring too frequently"? Give an example.

It depends on the artist. It's a very broad question. Major grossing artists that stage massive touring operations (The Stones, U2, The Police, Pink Floyd, etc.) sometimes need a few years to let demand sustain and/or increase. Whereas, moderately grossing artists (Rush, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam, Neil Young, etc.) can tour nearly every year and sustain and/or increase their grosses...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Wrong. U2 did TWO sets of returns in the NYC metro area on the Vertigo tour that were SPREAD OUT. One set in October. One set in November.

Nice try.

1. You made NO such distinction for return engagements. Here is what you said:

U2 did return engagements in ALL of the above markets you've just listed...Madonna DID NOT. That means up to 40-50% of the U2 fans who saw them in the spring of 2005 returned to see U2 again in the fall of 2005 in those markets

I simply responded to the formula you presented.


2. If your going to claim that the November 21-22 shows are seperate from the 5 they did from October 7 to October 14, how much closer to the October shows when the November shows have to be in order to be consider one set of return shows. Whats the cut off date?



3. Remember you said that U2's gross in the New York City area without return engagements was the following:

And in this case, U2's NYC metro area gross for this particular tour WITHOUT return engagements, was around $14 million.

BUT, you also stated multiple times in the UKMIX FORUM that:

Yes, U2 could've grossed more money than they've already grossed on their Vertigo tour (I'd say 10-20% more, based on the sales of their latest album, which would be around $450 million USD)

or

U2 could not play to more than 10-20% more people in ANY market worldwide than they already have on their current tour due to the sales based on their latest studio album.

So, we take $14 million dollars and add 20% to that because of your own admission that U2 underplayed the market by that amount. Add 20% to $14 million and you get $16.8 million which is MORE than Madonna's $16.5 million.

So, once again, USING YOUR OWN FORMULA, we show that U2 is the bigger draw than Madonna in the New York City area!

Why?

I'm curious to know if you consider San Diego to be virtually the same market as Los Angeles. Is it?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Did you ask every single one of them whether or not they were willing to pay to get it, or if they just wanted to listen to the music from outside?

...

People were trying to break into the venue and begging the concert staff to sell more tickets. I waited and asked for tickets for hours. Some people had signs asking for tickets. But no one was able to get any. Some people who had been there all day said the last ticket they saw available was sold for 3 times face value at 10:00 AM! There were no tickets available at all.

If what you're saying is true and U2 really didn't meet demand at that point in time on the Vertigo tour, then today U2 would be popular enough to schedule a coast to coast STADIUM tour of North America for their next tour, considering the kind of prices they're charging nowadays.

But we both know that's not going to happen...

I'd say it definitely would be happening if not for the current financial crises the world is currently in. Without knowing the full impact of this crises, yet, I'd say if U2 does tour in 2009, that it will be a very conservative tour, maybe all indoors, even in Europe. They also might postpone the album release until late 2009 and then tour in 2010. But we'll know for sure in a few months I guess.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

No, six weeks is not essentially the same time. And not all of the shows went on sale over a six week period.

Well, considering that most tours stagger their on sale dates over several weeks, what would you consider to be essentially the same time? What shows did not go on sale in that 6 week period?

If I went into a extremely detailed response (which would take a very long time) about concert demand formulas that are utilized by promoters, you'd find yet another way to spin it. So why should I bother?

I'm not asking you to go into any detail, just to point to a source other than yourself to back up what you claim in regards to the formula's and statistics.

I didn't say that. And no is proof needed. Madonna didn't tour for nearly 8 years. It's pretty obvious she wasn't interested in touring at this point in time.

I know thats your opinion, but what evidence do you have that supports your conclusion? In 1997, it had only been four years since Madonna toured. Can you find anyone in 1996 or 1997 that considered Madonna to be inactive or retired for some indefinite period of time? Michael Cohl was not just talking about artist who were actively touring in 1997.

Nope.

Ok, what was the exact qoute, and where is your source?

You stated that none of them agree with me. So, in order for them to agree or disagree with me, they'd have to be reading my posts on this board. And just because there is no statement from promoters that we've read regarding whether or not Madonna is a larger draw than U2, doesn't necessarily mean she isn't. The numbers don't lie.

I said none of their statements I have seen agree with what you have been saying. I know they don't look at this forum, but they certainly talk about the concert industry a lot, so I thought you should be able to find something they have said which would back up the formula and claims your making.

Its not actually the numbers were talking about. Were talking about your interpretation of the numbers and the formula's you have created for assessing what they mean. If you were to just take the raw boxscore numbers and add them up, U2 is ahead of Madonna period.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

It depends on the artist. It's a very broad question. Major grossing artists that stage massive touring operations (The Stones, U2, The Police, Pink Floyd, etc.) sometimes need a few years to let demand sustain and/or increase. Whereas, moderately grossing artists (Rush, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam, Neil Young, etc.) can tour nearly every year and sustain and/or increase their grosses...

Yet, in response to me saying that it takes about 3 years for the market to fully recover for all artist to their best business, you said the following in the UKMIX FORUM:

Nope. It ONLY takes ONE YEAR to recover.

Madonna's Chicago shows this year are taking place 2 and a half years AFTER the last time she played Chicago. So according to you, it should not be a factor at all.

 

[Moggio]

1. You made NO such distinction for return engagements. Here is what you said:

I simply responded to the formula you presented.

2. If your going to claim that the November 21-22 shows are seperate from the 5 they did from October 7 to October 14, how much closer to the October shows when the November shows have to be in order to be consider one set of return shows. Whats the cut off date?

There really is no cut off date. As long as shows are scheduled apart, the formula starts to apply. And I didn't need to really point out that out. And I'm not claiming they were separate. They WERE separate. Period. And you ALREADY KNEW THAT. Keep Spinnin'...

The point is that MADONNA IS A LARGER DRAW THAN U2 IS, OVERALL. Period. Why you can't admit that is beyond me?

3. Remember you said that U2's gross in the New York City area without return engagements was the following:

BUT, you also stated multiple times in the UKMIX FORUM that:

So, we take $14 million dollars and add 20% to that because of your own admission that U2 underplayed the market by that amount. Add 20% to $14 million and you get $16.8 million which is MORE than Madonna's $16.5 million.

I did not admit that U2 underplayed that market in 2005. They didn't. What you quoted was from 2006. I said 10-20%, which is the best case scenario after only one year. And it's convenient, you're utilizing the absolute highest percentage I stated, instead of the lowest... Also, when I said demand sustains after only one year, I was referring to many artists. I wasn't referring to all artists.

So, once again, USING YOUR OWN FORMULA, we show that U2 is the bigger draw than Madonna in the New York City area!

Wrong.

I'm curious to know if you consider San Diego to be virtually the same market as Los Angeles. Is it?

No, I don't.

 

[Moggio]

People were trying to break into the venue and begging the concert staff to sell more tickets. I waited and asked for tickets for hours. Some people had signs asking for tickets. But no one was able to get any. Some people who had been there all day said the last ticket they saw available was sold for 3 times face value at 10:00 AM! There were no tickets available at all.

Considering your history of fudging the facts. I really have no reason to believe that.

I'd say it definitely would be happening if not for the current financial crises the world is currently in. Without knowing the full impact of this crises, yet, I'd say if U2 does tour in 2009, that it will be a very conservative tour, maybe all indoors, even in Europe. They also might postpone the album release until late 2009 and then tour in 2010. But we'll know for sure in a few months I guess.

Yeah, right. Nice excuse. It's because demand isn't there for a full U2 North American STADIUM tour, at the prices they're charging. And YOU KNOW IT.

 

[Moggio]

Yet, in response to me saying that it takes about 3 years for the market to fully recover for all artist to their best business, you said the following in the UKMIX FORUM:

Madonna's Chicago shows this year are taking place 2 and a half years AFTER the last time she played Chicago. So according to you, it should not be a factor at all.

When I said that demand sustains after only one year, I was referring to many artists. I wasn't referring to all artists.

 

[Moggio]

Well, considering that most tours stagger their on sale dates over several weeks, what would you consider to be essentially the same time? What shows did not go on sale in that 6 week period?

Are you joking? The same time is the same time.

I'm not asking you to go into any detail, just to point to a source other than yourself to back up what you claim in regards to the formula's and statistics.

Again, what's the point, when you'll just find a way to spin it, like you ALWAYS DO.

I know thats your opinion, but what evidence do you have that supports your conclusion? In 1997, it had only been four years since Madonna toured. Can you find anyone in 1996 or 1997 that considered Madonna to be inactive or retired for some indefinite period of time?

Madonna toured in 1985, 1987, 1990 and 1993. She then didn't tour again until 2001. Figure it out, genius. It's beyond obvious.

Michael Cohl was not just talking about artist who were actively touring in 1997.

Prove it.

Ok, what was the exact qoute, and where is your source?

It's up to you, NOT ME, to provide an exact quote. Since YOU were the one who brought it up.

I said none of their statements I have seen agree with what you have been saying. I know they don't look at this forum, but they certainly talk about the concert industry a lot, so I thought you should be able to find something they have said which would back up the formula and claims your making.

Just because there is no promoter statement we can find to state Madonna is a larger draw than U2, doesn't necessarily mean she isn't. The numbers don't lie.

Its not actually the numbers were talking about. Were talking about your interpretation of the numbers and the formula's you have created for assessing what they mean.

It's not "my interpretation" and the formulas in question aren't ones "I have created". This is text book stuff.

If you were to just take the raw boxscore numbers and add them up, U2 is ahead of Madonna period.

Well, of course...because U2 have PLAYED MORE SHOWS than Madonna has per tour. And because U2 HAVE DONE RETURN ENGAGEMENTS on their most recent tours - MADONNA HASN'T.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

There really is no cut off date. As long as shows are scheduled apart, the formula starts to apply. And I didn't need to really point out that out. And I'm not claiming they were separate. They WERE separate. Period. And you ALREADY KNEW THAT. Keep Spinnin'...
.

Define seperate? Are you saying they are seperate because they are individual days, weeks, months? If the November shows on November 20-21 were on October 20 and 21, would you actually consider that to be a seperate return date?

I did not admit that U2 underplayed that market in 2005. They didn't. What you quoted was from 2006. I said 10-20%, which is the best case scenario after only one year. And it's convenient, you're utilizing the absolute highest percentage I stated, instead of the lowest... Also, when I said demand sustains after only one year, I was referring to many artists. I wasn't referring to all artists.

Every time you used the fact that U2 underplayed the market, and that they could have grossed 10% to 20% more, you were talking about the tour in general. You never stated that it only applied to certain markets. New York City was one of the largest markets of the tour, so naturally it would apply there.

No, I don't.

Well than how can you consider Fresno to be virtually the same market as Oakland California? Fresno is about a 3 hour drive from Oakland while San Diego is only a 2 hour drive from San Diego.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Yeah, right. Nice excuse. It's because demand isn't there for a full U2 North American STADIUM tour, at the prices they're charging. And YOU KNOW IT.

Anyone thats at least taken economics 101 realizes that what many consider to be the greatest global financial crises since the 1930s could indeed impact nearly any type of business in 2009.

But lets leave that out for a second and take a look at your idea that U2 underplayed the market in 2005 by 10% to 20%. U2 grossed $138 million dollars in 2005 in the US/Canadian market. If we add 20% because they underplayed the market, we get $165.5 million for 2005. But, were talking about a tour in 2009, so we need to adjust for inflation.

$165 million dollars in 2005 will probably be about $185 million dollars in 2009. If U2 charge an average of $100 dollars a ticket in 2009, this suggest they will play to 1,850,000 people in USA/Canada. If they do that with 42 stadium shows, that comes out to an average of about 44,000 people per night. U2 could repeat the Outside Broadcast ZOO TV TOUR of the USA and Canada in 2009 if they are charging an average of $100 dollars a ticket.

Again, this all derived for using YOUR FORMULA's and YOUR IDEA's.

So, even by your rules, U2 could repeat the stadium part of their North American tour from ZOO TV.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

When I said that demand sustains after only one year, I was referring to many artists. I wasn't referring to all artists.

Sorry, but since you did not make that distinction on the UKMIX FORUM, your automatically applying it to ALL artist, especially big artist like
U2 and the Rolling Stones since that is who we were discussing.

One can't really say that Madonna has ever been guilty of overplaying markets when you look at her full tour history.

She is playing Vancouver Canada for the first time ever on this tour! Her shows in Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Montenegro, were also first! When you have never played a particular market before and you have had a big career like Madonna, your gross is naturally going to be inflated by that factor. So this is another major issue that your completely overlooking when comparing Madonna to U2.