The Joshua Tree Tour 2017 Boxscore Discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Could it be that u2 didn't get all their boxscores in before the deadline?I mean GNR definitely haven't as the arena tour hasn't been announced.

Top boxscore was for the Paris shows wasn't it? Not Brazil
 
So I see that I didn't wrap up this thread properly. :shifty:

THE JOSHUA TREE TOUR 2017: 1ST LEG - NORTH AMERICA

GROSS: $123,766,509
ATTENDANCE: 1,043,414
AVERAGE GROSS: $6,188,325
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 52,171
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $118.62
SHOWS: 20
SELLOUTS: 20


THE JOSHUA TREE TOUR 2017: 2ND LEG - EUROPE

GROSS: $84,949,068
ATTENDANCE: 744,454
AVERAGE GROSS: $7,079,089
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 62,038
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $114.11
SHOWS: 12
SELLOUTS: 12


THE JOSHUA TREE TOUR 2017: 3RD LEG - NORTH AMERICA

GROSS: $38,585,915
ATTENDANCE: 350,292
AVERAGE GROSS: $4,823,239
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 43,787
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $110.15
SHOWS: 8
SELLOUTS: 8


THE JOSHUA TREE TOUR 2017: 4TH LEG - LATIN AMERICA

GROSS: $69,689,448
ATTENDANCE: 574,976
AVERAGE GROSS: $6,968,945
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 57,498
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $121.20
SHOWS: 10
SELLOUTS: 10


THE JOSHUA TREE TOUR 2017: TOTAL STATS

GROSS: $316,990,940
ATTENDANCE: 2,713,136
AVERAGE GROSS: $6,339,819
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 54,263
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $116.84
SHOWS: 50
SELLOUTS: 50


I think they'll get the top spot in those year-end charts. We'll see.
 
Boxscore: TOP 25 TOURS (2017) (Billboard Year-End Charts)

ARTIST(S) - TOTAL GROSS - TOTAL ATTENDEES - NO. OF SHOWS

1 - U2 - $316,990,940 - 2,713,136 - 50
2 - GUNS N' ROSES - $313,691,061 - 2,904,270 - 80
3 - COLDPLAY - $278,179,596 - 2,708,420 - 57
4 - BRUNO MARS - $159,305,612 - 1,567,230 - 106
5 - DEPECHE MODE - $123,491,472 - 1,565,455 - 60
6 - ED SHEERAN - $122,286,051 - 1,496,352 - 105
7 - THE ROLLING STONES - $119,957,689 - 755,345 - 14

They did it ,only just 3 million in it
 
But lost on overall attendance, and would have done so even if St Louis had gone ahead.
 
Some shows that were reported as "Sold Out" were not even close to selling out - Heinz Field in Pittsburgh had part of the upper deck curtained off - so it is best to take numbers reported by the promoter - and from pollstar with a grain of salt as there is nothing that tracks ticket sales with any degree of accuracy on a global scale.

Still the JT Tour did very well and I am glad they did it.
 
Boxscore: TOP 25 TOURS (2017) (Billboard Year-End Charts)

ARTIST(S) - TOTAL GROSS - TOTAL ATTENDEES - NO. OF SHOWS

1 - U2 - $316,990,940 - 2,713,136 - 50
2 - GUNS N' ROSES - $313,691,061 - 2,904,270 - 80
3 - COLDPLAY - $278,179,596 - 2,708,420 - 57
4 - BRUNO MARS - $159,305,612 - 1,567,230 - 106
5 - DEPECHE MODE - $123,491,472 - 1,565,455 - 60
6 - ED SHEERAN - $122,286,051 - 1,496,352 - 105
7 - THE ROLLING STONES - $119,957,689 - 755,345 - 14

They did it ,only just 3 million in it

:applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud:
 
To think the nearest were 3 million dollars away but played 30 shows more then u2. Guns and roses played to 200k more people but that was always going to be the case seeing as they did 80 shows compared to U2's 50
 
To think the nearest were 3 million dollars away but played 30 shows more then u2. Guns and roses played to 200k more people but that was always going to be the case seeing as they did 80 shows compared to U2's 50



The true measure of success is gross, always has been. Attendance is a nice feather in your cap but gross is the only thing that matters.
 
The true measure of success is gross, always has been. Attendance is a nice feather in your cap but gross is the only thing that matters.



True, just imagine if u2 had done 80 shows like gnr. There wouldn't have been any competition
 
True, just imagine if u2 had done 80 shows like gnr. There wouldn't have been any competition



If they went all out and toured Australia, New Zealand, Japan, most of Europe....yeah, it would have been really huge (what they did in only 50 shows was amazing too).
 
Boxscore: TOP 25 TOURS (2017) (Billboard Year-End Charts)

ARTIST(S) - TOTAL GROSS - TOTAL ATTENDEES - NO. OF SHOWS

1 - U2 - $316,990,940 - 2,713,136 - 50
2 - GUNS N' ROSES - $313,691,061 - 2,904,270 - 80
3 - COLDPLAY - $278,179,596 - 2,708,420 - 57
4 - BRUNO MARS - $159,305,612 - 1,567,230 - 106
5 - DEPECHE MODE - $123,491,472 - 1,565,455 - 60
6 - ED SHEERAN - $122,286,051 - 1,496,352 - 105
7 - THE ROLLING STONES - $119,957,689 - 755,345 - 14

I just noticed on the Wikipedia site that GNR is listed as grossing $430,380,000

But apparently they are taking into consideration that the GNR tour kicked off in 2016 and adding that to the 2017 gross (and counting).

From just a top grossing perspective, it would have been interesting if U2 had gone all out and covered the globe with the JT30 tour to see where it would have ended up.
 
I just noticed on the Wikipedia site that GNR is listed as grossing $430,380,000

But apparently they are taking into consideration that the GNR tour kicked off in 2016 and adding that to the 2017 gross (and counting).

From just a top grossing perspective, it would have been interesting if U2 had gone all out and covered the globe with the JT30 tour to see where it would have ended up.

Not really. I get your point. That they could have had a mammoth tour if they would have just toured the world extensively. But it just seemed to get tired by the time it came back on the third leg. would much rather they put out new albums and not tour a 30 year old one. but thats me.
 
If they had done 110 shows like the 360 tour they wouldn't have been far off topping it for gross
 
The true measure of success is gross, always has been. Attendance is a nice feather in your cap but gross is the only thing that matters.

Well that depends. Does gross include product sales? More people seeing your show = more t-shirts, etc. sold.

I understand in terms of ranking these things that only gross counts, but in terms of the bottom line, merchandise make up a decent chunk of touring income.
 
speaking of tours, how badly did Guy O' fuck up on this current tour. Jesus. It really pisses me off. I have spent years defending U2's ticket prices, because - they have always been reasonable. But now, I just can't. The prices are stupid, and to price them this way after just touring through 6 - 10 months earlier is absurd.

They have half sold ARENAS!!! Guy O' is trashing the bands value and status for a couple hundred thousand per more per show. It's sad, and will end up losing them money in the future, as people view them as a band that they can't go see, that can't sell out a fucking arena, and that are rich assholes that preach about love and charity.

They had 45k people buy tickets in St. Louis JT show before it was cancelled and now they have about 10k people that have bought tickets to this show.
Fucking stupid.

ok, I got that off my chest.
 
Last edited:
speaking of tours, how badly did Guy O' fuck up on this current tour. Jesus. It really pisses me off. I have spent years defending U2's ticket prices, because - they have always been reasonable. But now, I just can't. The prices are stupid, and to price them this way after just touring through 6 - 10 months earlier is absurd.

They have half sold ARENAS!!! Guy O' is trashing the bands value and status for a couple hundred thousand per more per show

Don't blame it on "Guy O'". He works for U2.
 
Seems to be a new tactic now where they put ticket prices as high as possible then as the gig gets closer they put the prices down and they sell.

It did seem to work on the jt tour


I do agree guy is one of the worst things to happen to the band though
 
Don't blame it on "Guy O'". He works for U2.

Good point. But, they pay him to put business and artistic strategy in place that works in their best interest. I don't see that happening here. And yes, its sad to me that the band wouldn't say - hey man, we're not charging 350 fucking dollars for this section of seats.

just disheartening having always been able to say, hey, U2's avg. ticket price is 80 bucks, or 100 bucks, 110 bucks... Now... what do is say? yep, 400-500 bucks for you and your kid to go see U2 is super reasonable... :huh:
 
I'm no fan of Oseary (I never thought they should have ditched Magoo) but blaming him and not U2 for their ticket prices & promotional strategy is the system working exactly as its designed to work.

There's an unwritten rule in setting ticket prices...the artist is absolutely insulated from blame. That's how it's set up to work. The entire secondary ticket market, which most big artists profit from, is specifically designed so that acts can have the appearance of keeping ticket prices relatively low while actually moving a substantial number of tickets at exorbitant prices. If U2 wanted to sell tickets at a lower price, they could. But it would obviously hurt their bottom line significantly. And we all know it's touring where they make their money.

Oseary wasn't hired to manage U2 the way Magoo did. U2 is already an established act. Oseary was hired because he's supposedly is plugged in with how the industry works now, and how to maximise profits from it. Sadly the ugliness you're seeing now is just the product of that.
 
Last edited:
Oseary wasn't hired to manage U2 the way Magoo did. U2 is already an established act. Ossuary was hired because he's supposedly is plugged in with how the industry works now, and how to maximise profits from it Sadly the ugliness you're seeing now is just the product of that.



I am afraid Nick is likely correct....couldn’t agree more with the above statement.

Now I’m not sure who is to blame for Bono’s new shades but if it is Oseary....then he needs to go.
 
I'm no fan of Oseary (I never thought they should have ditched Magoo) but blaming him and not U2 for their ticket prices & promotional strategy is the system working exactly as its designed to work.

There's an unwritten rule in setting ticket prices...the artist is absolutely insulated from blame. That's how it's set up to work. The entire secondary ticket market, which most big artists profit from, is specifically designed so that acts can have the appearance of keeping ticket prices relatively low while actually moving a substantial number of tickets at exorbitant prices. If U2 wanted to sell tickets at a lower price, they could. But it would obviously hurt their bottom line significantly. And we all know it's touring where they make their money.

Oseary wasn't hired to manage U2 the way Magoo did. U2 is already an established act. Oseary was hired because he's supposedly is plugged in with how the industry works now, and how to maximise profits from it. Sadly the ugliness you're seeing now is just the product of that.



I have a couple of questions about your post. You say they never should have “ditched” McGuiness. Which sounds like they decided to get rid of him. Do you know something I don’t? Because I thought he chose to retire and was involved in negotiating the Live Nation deal and bringing on Oseary before he left.

Also, you say that artists profit from the secondary ticket market. How?

I agree the ticket prices for this tour are too high, particularly for seats in the upper concourse. It is hard to square that with a band that has tried (at least in the past) to maintain a relationship with it’s audience that goes beyond the commercial. And the whole verified fan fiasco doesn’t help either.
 
Seems to be a new tactic now where they put ticket prices as high as possible then as the gig gets closer they put the prices down and they sell.

It did seem to work on the jt tour


I do agree guy is one of the worst things to happen to the band though



I am an old 80s fan who has recently got into the band again, so the current tour is the first time I’ve bought tickets in ages. For any concert really, so I’m out of the loop on these things. Are you saying that for the past tour, ticket prices started high and went down as the show date approached? If so, that seems like another way of punishing hard core fans, who are the most likely to buy early, I would think.
 
I am an old 80s fan who has recently got into the band again, so the current tour is the first time I’ve bought tickets in ages. For any concert really, so I’m out of the loop on these things. Are you saying that for the past tour, ticket prices started high and went down as the show date approached? If so, that seems like another way of punishing hard core fans, who are the most likely to buy early, I would think.



Yeah it happened a lot on the Joshua tree tour and I'm pretty sure they did it on the i&e tour.

If there's higher priced tickets left they get reduced. The shows that didn't look like selling out on the Joshua tree tour more or less all sold out by the day of the gig.

We only know this cause ticketmaster maps would be checked regularly by people on here, to see how ticket sales are going. It's not just a u2 thing it happens with all artists.
 
Yeah it happened a lot on the Joshua tree tour and I'm pretty sure they did it on the i&e tour.

If there's higher priced tickets left they get reduced. The shows that didn't look like selling out on the Joshua tree tour more or less all sold out by the day of the gig.

We only know this cause ticketmaster maps would be checked regularly by people on here, to see how ticket sales are going. It's not just a u2 thing it happens with all artists.



Thanks for the info.
 
I'm no fan of Oseary (I never thought they should have ditched Magoo) but blaming him and not U2 for their ticket prices & promotional strategy is the system working exactly as its designed to work.

There's an unwritten rule in setting ticket prices...the artist is absolutely insulated from blame. That's how it's set up to work. The entire secondary ticket market, which most big artists profit from, is specifically designed so that acts can have the appearance of keeping ticket prices relatively low while actually moving a substantial number of tickets at exorbitant prices. If U2 wanted to sell tickets at a lower price, they could. But it would obviously hurt their bottom line significantly. And we all know it's touring where they make their money.

Oseary wasn't hired to manage U2 the way Magoo did. U2 is already an established act. Oseary was hired because he's supposedly is plugged in with how the industry works now, and how to maximise profits from it. Sadly the ugliness you're seeing now is just the product of that.

huh?! The band makes no money from jacked up prices on the secondary market. Scalpers snatch them up at normal price and then if the show sells out quickly, can make a huge profit by selling their stash of tickets at high prices. If they show stalls out and doesn't sell well, then the scalpers get left holding the bag and probably will lose money in the end.
But neither scenerio effects the bands profit.

Lets just get something straight here. If the band and Guy O' had priced this tour reasonably, they would have sellouts right now in every arena and probably an extra night or two in the major markets.

So what you have now is this:

Ticket prices jacked up by 25 - 30%
they play to 75% full arenas in some markets meaning they end up making the same amount on tickets, but make far less on merchandise, and end up getting negative press that U2, the biggest band in the world can't sell out a fucking arena.

In a major market, they are playing 2 shows!! So instead of playing 4-6 shows in LA or NY (EIGHT shows last tour!!!) , and at least 3 in Chicago, Boston, etc... they are playing 2 shows each, which is amazingly stupid, if they are looking at the bottom line.

So with high ticket price, you have Avg. price of $145 for 2 shows = about 5.2 million

With pricing of i&e tour - avg price of $115 for 3 shows = 6.2 mill
and 4 shows = 8.3 mill
6 shows = 12.4 mill

And of course anywhere from 1 to 6 extra nights of merch sales. And of course the perception that U2 is still selling out multiple shows easily instead of - hey, they played 6 shows here last time and now they are playing 2. They are old news.
 
Last edited:
huh?! The band makes no money from jacked up prices on the secondary market. Scalpers snatch them up at normal price and then if the show sells out quickly, can make a huge profit by selling their stash of tickets at high prices. If they show stalls out and doesn't sell well, then the scalpers get left holding the bag and probably will lose money in the end.
But neither scenerio effects the bands profit.

Lets just get something straight here. If the band and Guy O' had priced this tour reasonably, they would have sellouts right now in every arena and probably an extra night or two in the major markets.

So what you have now is this:

Ticket prices jacked up by 25 - 30%
they play to 75% full arenas in some markets meaning they end up making the same amount on tickets, but make far less on merchandise, and end up getting negative press that U2, the biggest band in the world can't sell out a fucking arena.

In a major market, they are playing 2 shows!! So instead of playing 4-6 shows in LA or NY (EIGHT shows last tour!!!) , and at least 3 in Chicago, Boston, etc... they are playing 2 shows each, which is amazingly stupid, if they are looking at the bottom line.

So with high ticket price, you have Avg. price of $145 for 2 shows = about 5.2 million

With pricing of i&e tour - avg price of $115 for 3 shows = 6.2 mill
and 4 shows = 8.3 mill
6 shows = 12.4 mill

And of course anywhere from 1 to 6 extra nights of merch sales. And of course the perception that U2 is still selling out multiple shows easily instead of - hey, they played 6 shows here last time and now they are playing 2. They are old news.



You make excellent points. I really don’t understand it. I thought these guys were smart.
 
huh?! The band makes no money from jacked up prices on the secondary market. Scalpers snatch them up at normal price and then if the show sells out quickly, can make a huge profit by selling their stash of tickets at high prices. If they show stalls out and doesn't sell well, then the scalpers get left holding the bag and probably will lose money in the end.
But neither scenerio effects the bands profit.

I'm not talking about scalpers, and it's not entirely true that the artists don't profit from the secondary market. Bands like U2, their label, management, etc. hold back significant numbers of tickets for themselves before they're made available to the general public. And a good number of those tickets will end up on the secondary market, sold by companies owned by, guess who...Ticketmaster. Then promoters and their like, who have significant numbers of hold back tickets as well, will use the secondary market to help cover guarantees made to the bands. For an act like U2, a large percentage of the tickets for any given tour are already spoken for before the first ticket goes on sale. If the tour doesn't sell out, those tickets are simply sold at "discount" prices. But in the case of prestige acts, its very rarely the band who is left holding the bag.

This article is a pretty decent primer on how ticketing actually works today.

So if you want to see Star A playing at Arena B, you may well find Arena B sells tickets only through Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster, in turn, owns the resale sites GetMeIn! and Seatwave. Arena B has an interest in Ticketmaster making the most money possible from the show, because it helps it with its contract. Ticketmaster has an interest in getting tickets on to GetMeIn! and Seatwave, because it takes a cut of those sales. The only one who loses out is you.

The real issue here – and you probably don’t want to hear this – is that the most popular artists do not charge enough for their tickets. The resale sites have proved that the market will support much higher pricing, but the artists don’t want to be the ones who look like greedy moneygrabbers by asking for those prices. So other people do the dirty work, and the artist still gets the guaranteed fee they asked for – from the sponsors who presold tickets, from revenues from resale sites, or – in Swift’s case – from the purchases her fans made to get in the ticket queue. If artists hiked the price of tickets, people would moan at them, but far fewer tickets would go to touts, because the margins would discourage them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom