U2 360 Boxscore Discussion

[hey you]

Didn't you know? The 360° facts don't count because of strategic schedueling.

I haven' read one single post of that guy (Interference and Ukmix), that is not related with "U2 not being a bigger draw than x and y". Moggio, why don't you just.... fuck off and try to get a life? Don't you realise how ridiculous this is?

And now it's your turn:

Since when is posting FACTS ridiculous? The Rolling Stones ARE THE BIGGER DRAW blablabliblubblblabla inflation blubblub strategic schedueling...blablabla

it's getting boring...

god bless you.
i think that u2 at last date of this tour will play a cover of mariah carey"obsessed" in honour of moggio.

 

[doctorwho]

Uh, not the post I quoted.

It was implied.

Incorrect.

The actual statement was that U2 are the biggest draw in the world - again, implied that U2 are the biggest draw right now, not of all time.

That's because, overall, THE STONES ARE STILL A LARGER DRAW THAN U2 ARE.

They have also been around longer than U2 and are considered, like it or not, a nostalgia act. U2 are bordering on that, but still seem to have top selling albums and Top 100 hits around the globe. This alone prevents them from relying on past hits only to get people to see them.

Furthermore, if U2 were nostalgia act only, it begs the question why their current albums always zip up the charts whenever they tour in a given country. This was true for ATYCLB, HTDAAB and now for NLOTH. Clearly fans care about the current material as much as the older material. To have fans love a new song as much as a song released 20 years ago is outstanding. In contrast, most people who attend a Stones concert are looking at material from the 60's to about 1978. Even if the Stones are creating great music now, it's not being recognized. U2 may one day be in that category, but not yet.

If you've studied the concert business thoroughly (which I can see you obviously haven't), you'll know that for the vast majority of major touring acts, the current recession is having almost no impact whatsoever (there are a few exceptions). People love music and love to spend money on entertainment...

If you've studied the economy at all, which I can see you obviously haven't, you would know this. People will spend money to be entertained, but it's a proven fact that everyone, from established adults to teens, are cutting back.

However, U2 still charges much lower prices than many acts - especially the Stones. For ZOO TV, people could still get a ticket for a scant $25. For PopMart, $37 was still possible (with the high of about $65, whereas the Stones were well over $100 by then). In the three tours this decade, fans were able to get some of the best spots at the concert for $45 or less. Contrast this to the Stones where prices are hundreds and hundreds. It's very easy to have monstrous grossing tours when ticket prices are also monstrous.

But again, what's with the competition? If you disagreed, why do so in a belligerent manner? Why not merely point out that U2 are big now, but that the Stones are probably still biggest ever. I doubt anyone would disagree.

In essence, the person wrote that 20 years after JT, U2 are still huge and that is outstanding. You seem to want to belittle and attack, resulting in closed threads. Never has a thread been closed in this forum until your arrival.

 

[bathiu]

Hi all. You know there's "ignore button" here, right?

 

[CosmoKramer]

Inflation AND accumulative album sales. Which would put The Stones' next tour gross total in the neighborhood of $700 million, when they tour again in 2010-2011, if they basically hit the same markets and play the same amount of shows they did on their last tour...

So their tour would gross 700 million when you add in cumulative album sales.... What about t-shirt sales and posters and calendars and tattoos of those big lips...lol

Moggio, you make yourself look foolish when you reach like this.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Yeah! Let's deny the FACTS! Who needs 'em...

Moggio, here is a fact:

$131,000,000

I will be sure to keep you updated as this number changes and reaches/passes 558,000,000.

 

[digitize]

Hi all. You know there's "ignore button" here, right?

Yeah, but where's the fun in simply ignoring a troll?

 

[Moggio]

It was implied.

Hardly.

The actual statement was that U2 are the biggest draw in the world - again, implied that U2 are the biggest draw right now, not of all time.

Still incorrect.

They have also been around longer than U2 and are considered, like it or not, a nostalgia act. U2 are bordering on that, but still seem to have top selling albums and Top 100 hits around the globe. This alone prevents them from relying on past hits only to get people to see them.

Furthermore, if U2 were nostalgia act only, it begs the question why their current albums always zip up the charts whenever they tour in a given country. This was true for ATYCLB, HTDAAB and now for NLOTH. Clearly fans care about the current material as much as the older material. To have fans love a new song as much as a song released 20 years ago is outstanding. In contrast, most people who attend a Stones concert are looking at material from the 60's to about 1978. Even if the Stones are creating great music now, it's not being recognized. U2 may one day be in that category, but not yet.

That may be true but does NOTHING to detract that FACT that The Stones are still are larger concert draw than U2 are worldwide.

If you've studied the economy at all, which I can see you obviously haven't, you would know this. People will spend money to be entertained, but it's a proven fact that everyone, from established adults to teens, are cutting back.

Then why are virtually ALL of the major tours SELLING AS EXPECTED right now?

However, U2 still charges much lower prices than many acts - especially the Stones. For ZOO TV, people could still get a ticket for a scant $25. For PopMart, $37 was still possible (with the high of about $65, whereas the Stones were well over $100 by then). In the three tours this decade, fans were able to get some of the best spots at the concert for $45 or less. Contrast this to the Stones where prices are hundreds and hundreds. It's very easy to have monstrous grossing tours when ticket prices are also monstrous.

That's because since THE STONES ARE A LARGER DRAW THAN U2 ARE, The Stones are able to charge more $$$. It's simple economics. If U2's prices were exactly in line with The Stones' and U2 did not strategically schedule their 360 tour, I can assure you that many of U2's shows would not be officially sold out (in fact MANY of 'em still haven't officially sold out with the prices they are charging).

But again, what's with the competition? If you disagreed, why do so in a belligerent manner? Why not merely point out that U2 are big now, but that the Stones are probably still biggest ever. I doubt anyone would disagree.

I posted in a belligerent manner? Have you read all of the insults posters have thrown at me in this very thread? Whereas, ALL I've done is posted FACTS.

In essence, the person wrote that 20 years after JT, U2 are still huge and that is outstanding. You seem to want to belittle and attack, resulting in closed threads. Never has a thread been closed in this forum until your arrival.

No belittling or attacks on my part. Again, ALL I'm doing is posting FACTS. And ALL the U2 fanboys on this forum are crying like a bunch of children because they know I'm right.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

 

[Moggio]

So their tour would gross 700 million when you add in cumulative album sales.... What about t-shirt sales and posters and calendars and tattoos of those big lips...lol

Moggio, you make yourself look foolish when you reach like this.

No offense but your above comment is further proof of your ignorance regarding how the concert business works...

 

[Moggio]

Moggio, here is a fact:

$131,000,000

I will be sure to keep you updated as this number changes and reaches/passes 558,000,000.

Alright...you go girl!

 

[hey you]

Hardly.



Still incorrect.



That may be true but does NOTHING to detract that FACT that The Stones are still are larger concert draw than U2 are worldwide.



Then why are virtually ALL of the major tours SELLING AS EXPECTED right now?



That's because since THE STONES ARE A LARGER DRAW THAN U2 ARE, The Stones are able to charge more $$$. It's simple economics. If U2's prices were exactly in line with The Stones' and U2 did not strategically schedule their 360 tour, I can assure you that many of U2's shows would not be officially sold out (in fact MANY of 'em still haven't officially sold out with the prices they are charging).



I posted in a belligerent manner? Have you read all of the insults posters have thrown at me in this very thread? Whereas, ALL I've done is posted FACTS.



No belittling or attacks on my part. Again, ALL I'm doing is posting FACTS. And ALL the U2 fanboys on this forum are crying like a bunch of children because they know I'm right.

yeah the stones are able the charge more $$$ but not to selling albums in the last 30 years . is a FACT AND you A FUCK FACT . clown go to your place.

 

[CosmoKramer]

No offense but your above comment is further proof of your ignorance regarding how the concert business works...

What is ironic about your comment is that not only the people in this forum think you're a fool but the people in the UKMIX forum think you're a fool. I guess everyone else is ignorant of how the concert business works but you. You make excuses for all of U2's success that it just becomes sad. The bottom line is that U2360 will out gross the stones, end of story. You are the ONLY person who doesn't understand this......I feel sorry for you.

Before you realized how well 360 was selling you NEVER mentioned "strategic touring" but now thats all you talk about as if it is even relevant

It doesnt matter how a tour grosses 700 million, it just matters that it did.

 

[CosmoKramer]

yeah the stones are able the charge more $$$ but not to selling albums in the last 30 years . is a FACT AND you A FUCK FACT . clown go to your place.

Hey you- Dont forget that the Stones charge more money but DONT sell out most of their stadium dates. As many people have stated prior, the Stones sold out only a fraction of their dates but because they charge so much (i.e. screw their fans over) they gross a lot of money.

It doesn't matter anyway, because u2360 will gross more than any tour in history when all is said and done.

 

[Moggio]

What is ironic about your comment is that not only the people in this forum think you're a fool but the people in the UKMIX forum think you're a fool.

Do you think I care? Most people on that forum don't know how the concert business works either.

I guess everyone else is ignorant of how the concert business works but you.

Apart from Maloil, yes. But I don't respond to his posts anymore because he consistently lies about and manipulates just about everything he posts to make U2 look more popular than they are.

You make excuses for all of U2's success that it just becomes sad.

That's what you would like to believe.

The bottom line is that U2360 will out gross the stones, end of story.

I've already gone over explicitly and have proven why you're completely wrong. So I don't know why you keep saying that?

You are the ONLY person who doesn't understand this......I feel sorry for you.

Again, virtually everyone I've talked to doesn't understand how concert demand works.

Before you realized how well 360 was selling you NEVER mentioned "strategic touring" but now thats all you talk about as if it is even relevant

Wtf? ANYONE viewing U2's 360 tour schedule can figure out why their grosses have been enhanced in just about every single market they're playing in so far. I knew that as soon as their 360 tour schedule was released a few months ago. And the fact that you seem to think "strategic scheduling" isn't relevant, doesn't exist or isn't being utilized by U2 on this tour, is further proof that you're extremely ignorant regarding how concert demand works.

It doesnt matter how a tour grosses 700 million, it just matters that it did.

You still don't get it. And the 360 tour won't gross $700 million, unless there are more than 100 shows played...

 

[beLIEve]

Moggio,

My post had nothing to say about the Rolling Stones. I don't care about the Rollings Stones. You obviously do care about the Rolling Stones, at least their touring numbers. You've shown that the Rolling Stones have grossed more money in their tours, throughout their career, than U2 has grossed. Agreed. But again, why do you insist on "showing up" U2's success with Rolling Stone statistics every time someone posts about U2's current touring success?

Yeah, yeah, you'll pick apart multiple partial statements and list some big gross figure from a Rolling Stones Tour. Again, on a U2 forum, nobody, besides you, cares! As I've said before, IMHO, U2 are the biggest, the best, the most commercially successful band in the world, period. I'm sure there are others who feel the same about the Beatles, the Stones, Pink Floyd, and even newer bands like Coldplay and Green Day. Fact is, all of these bands have had great successes on many levels, and there are websites set up for their followers to discuss why "their" band is the best, biggest, most successful, etc.

You seem determined to ruin what has always been a civil forum for a select group of fans who follow the chart/touring success of U2. You can post all the Rolling Stone stats you want to prove the Rolling Stones have grossed more money with their tours...but it's the way you do it, and where you do it, that ruins this fan community forum. Please take your information to a site that cares about it.

Mods...I believe I've explained this in a reasonable and rational manner. I never even mentioned Moggio or the Stones in my post...just my amazement as to U2's longevity with respect to good music and successful tours. I'm sorry that my post that was entirely about U2 - the business side of U2 which is the stated topic of this forum - brought in someone bent on being argumentative and obsessed with a band other than U2. Please don't lock threads or let one troll dictate what most forum members write about in normally respectful, thoughtful posts. If action must be taken, please send the troll packing. Thanks for listening.

 

[fedeu2]

That's because since THE STONES ARE A LARGER DRAW THAN U2 ARE, The Stones are able to charge more $$$. It's simple economics. If U2's prices were exactly in line with The Stones' and U2 did not strategically schedule their 360 tour, I can assure you that many of U2's shows would not be officially sold out (in fact MANY of 'em still haven't officially sold out with the prices they are charging).

WRONG. The only reason The Stones are able to charge top prices is because there still is a certain number of people who would pay anything to see them live. Mind you, that number is getting smaller by the year. That´s why The Stones played to many half empty stadiums in Europe last time around.
U2 could charge the same prices than the Stones or even more and they would still draw more people than them. Charging their tickets like The Stones do, U2 could easily gross in excess of 1 billion dollars for this tour, something that good old Mick and Keith could only dream of.

 

[ramblin rose]

Please, let's get this thread back on topic.

 

[phommel]

But it is true that this allows the promoter to consider demand in deciding how many tickets to release for sell. Once a ticket is released for sell though, if it is not sold, then a sellout will not be achieved, and it will be noted in the boxscore.
Just to show that the whole "sellout" thing is not a "PR STUNT" take a look at the following Bruce Springsteen Concerts this year:

These shows are from the Magic Tour which started in 2007. 32 shows did not sellout. Here they are:

June 18, 2008
Amsterdam
Amsterdam Arena
Tickets on sale: 36,529
Tickets sold: 36,257

I agree that the whole sellout thing is not a PR stunt. However, looking at these figures for Amsterdam ArenA. Like this it looks that it was nearly a sellout, while 50,000 people fir in Amsterdam ArenA. So to me it was very far from a sellout. Probably the promotor is conservative in releasing tickets for selling. In this way you can achieve sellouts or nearly sellouts always. Just release tickets step-by-step. I think it's still a bit misleading.

 

[phommel]

hmmm now I read previous 50 posts...why cannot we go back to the topic and stop comparing U2 with the Stones? It's impossible to decide who is bigger since there might be lots of differences in under/overplaying areas, differences in inflation, ticket pricing, etc., differences in attendance, difference in recession/economy...

and it's also very annoying if people start using only other colour fonts...

 

[fedeu2]

and it's also very annoying if people start using only other colour fonts...

 

[powerhour24]

Particularly when they're blue fonts on interference, . ...oh wait, the whole site uses blue on blue )

 

[ramblin rose]

Please, let it go. This thread will be closed if it can't get back on topic.

 

[u2search]

June 18, 2008
Amsterdam
Amsterdam Arena
Tickets on sale: 36,529
Tickets sold: 36,257

I agree that the whole sellout thing is not a PR stunt. However, looking at these figures for Amsterdam ArenA. Like this it looks that it was nearly a sellout, while 50,000 people fir in Amsterdam ArenA. So to me it was very far from a sellout. Probably the promotor is conservative in releasing tickets for selling. In this way you can achieve sellouts or nearly sellouts always. Just release tickets step-by-step. I think it's still a bit misleading.

I was at that show and with some 20.000 odd good seats empty they couldn't have that one declared a sellout even with those 272 extra tickets sold...
and I mean clearly visible complete blocks of seats opposite the stage, not a few rows near the back.

 

[u2search]

Wembley II was genuinely sold out. I could buy the last 2 GPB 30 tickets but they were too far apart so we dissed them. We got back half a hour later to check and right before us (1 more person in the que) they announced tickets in all price cats were finished. We stayed outside and untill well after the show started people were askong for spare tickets.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Tomorrow or Thursday we should find out the following:

Poland
Croatia
Croatia
Wembley
Wembley


I think it is reasonable to think the 2nd Wembley sold out. A report I saw read that 88k for the 1st show sold and that they were expecting 170 for the two shows (the report came out prior to the 1st show). So, that would mean that 82k sold for the 2nd show at that point in time. All you would need is for 5k out of 88k to say "I gotta see this again" or 2.5k out of the 88k to say "I gotta see this again and bring a friend". Now I know that a lot of those 88k went to both shows (most likely) but even then there are your last moment ticket buyers in addition to the "new" repeats.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I was at that show and with some 20.000 odd good seats empty they couldn't have that one declared a sellout even with those 272 extra tickets sold...

Once again, there could be 30,000 seats in the venue that are not released for sell, and as long as they are not, they have no bearing on whether the show is declared a sellout or not.

Tickets on sale: 36,529
Tickets sold: 36,257

When you sell all the tickets released for sell, the show can be declared a sellout. That is how it has worked in the industry for over 40 years now.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Once again, there could be 30,000 seats in the venue that are not released for sell, and as long as they are not, they have no bearing on whether the show is declared a sellout or not.

Tickets on sale: 36,529
Tickets sold: 36,257

When you sell all the tickets released for sell, the show can be declared a sellout. That is how it has worked in the industry for over 40 years now.

Maoil- Given the size of U2's stage and of course their concept of only playing certain style stadiums, are there a significant number of venues in Europe/ US that they could not play? Or is their stage concept geared towards the more common venue type? Im just trying to see cities that they would not be able to play regardless if they wanted to or not due to their stage.......

 

[icecreamkiller]

I'd just like to chip in with my two cents regarding the sellouts as reported by Billboard Boxscore.

It's not Billboard that comes up with the attendance/gross data for any show by any artist. They only publish it. It's the concert promoter (Live Nation in this case, obviously) that reports the attendance, capacity and gross of every show to Billboard, who then publishes that.

And as far as I'm aware, a sell-out as reported by Billboard doesn't mean every ticket was sold. A sell-out means that the number of tickets the concert promoter (again, Live Nation) expected to sell was sold. That's also the number that goes under "capacity", not the real number of tickets available. What happens in U2's case is that they're such a huge live draw that that number is usually quite close (and sometimes is the same as) the total number of tickets available. It doesn't mean necessarily that the tickets were released in blocks - a concert that has over 10,000 tickets up for sale 5 minutes after the first song has started can be reported as a sold-out event by Billboard if the number of tickets the concert promoter expected to sell was 10,000+ below the number of tickets that they could actually sell in order to completely fill the venue.

It may or may not be a PR stunt - but U2 didn't come up with it and Lord knows they're not the only ones who use it (in fact, they're probably the band that should get the least criticism for their Billboard Boxscore numbers, since they're usually very close to the real number of tickets available). Artists ranging anywhere from moderate-sized arena-playing acts like Coldplay or Beyoncé to huge stadium fillers like Madonna and Springsteen do it.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

There are a bunch of seats always left empty directly opposite the stage, check the wembley shows you can see the same there, they just werent put on sale,

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I'd just like to chip in with my two cents regarding the sellouts as reported by Billboard Boxscore.

It's not Billboard that comes up with the attendance/gross data for any show by any artist. They only publish it. It's the concert promoter (Live Nation in this case, obviously) that reports the attendance, capacity and gross of every show to Billboard, who then publishes that.

Well, I don't think anyone here suggest otherwise. But the results are checked to insure they are accurate.

And as far as I'm aware, a sell-out as reported by Billboard doesn't mean every ticket was sold. A sell-out means that the number of tickets the concert promoter (again, Live Nation) expected to sell was sold. That's also the number that goes under "capacity", not the real number of tickets available. What happens in U2's case is that they're such a huge live draw that that number is usually quite close (and sometimes is the same as) the total number of tickets available. It doesn't mean necessarily that the tickets were released in blocks - a concert that has over 10,000 tickets up for sale 5 minutes after the first song has started can be reported as a sold-out event by Billboard if the number of tickets the concert promoter expected to sell was 10,000+ below the number of tickets that they could actually sell in order to completely fill the venue.

Again, the number of tickets that are released for sell is dependent on many different factors. If an artist is touring with a stage that is not open to the back, the promoter will not release tickets for sell that are behind the stage. They also may not release tickets on the side of the stage until they day of the show to be certain the seats are not obstructed view. Lighting, mixing desk, and other things apart of the concert set up can block some seats and it may not be known until the venue is set up for the show whether certain seats can be used. So those seats are not released for sell.

This of course allows the promoter to simply release a smaller block of tickets that they think the artist can sell by showtime. Sometimes the artist does sell the tickets, sometimes they don't. Nearly half of Bruce Springsteens shows this year have not soldout. At the May 2001 Elevation show in Pittsburgh PA, the 2nd level behind the stage area was empty. This was a $45 dollar ticket section. Just before the concert you could not buy tickets in this area, although you would have had a clear view of everything. In fact, no tickets were available.The promoter chose not to release these tickets for sell. The concert was recorded as a sellout.