U2 360 TOUR: Sellouts, Attendance, other statistics

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Currently, U2 would have to gross over $700 million without a "strategically scheduled" tour to top The Stones. But since their ENTIRE 360 tour is scheduled this way, topping The Stones is not going to happen, even if they do gross $700 million by the end of it because it will be through "strategic scheduling"...

Wait- So its not how many people you play to. Its not how much you gross. Its how much you gross based on how you schedule the tour....come on. I mean WTF is that. You cant be for real!!! If scheduling was that important, then wouldn't every act gross 500-700 million dollars????? We could argue that the big acts could but you didnt want to post Madonna or The Boss' tour numbers :)sexywink:) so we cant compare. Eitherway, I see that you are going to make any reason for U2 not being a huge draw (yes, I went back to the "huge draw" comment that you say you never mentioned but your posts basically elude to). Just go to a 360 tour show and see if you like it...just go to one (everyone here will agree to deduct the cost of your ticket from the final tour gross).
 
The Australian leg of the Black Ice tour is THE HIGHEST GROSSING TOUR IN AUSTRALIAN HISTORY. A quick google news search can tell you that. And U2 don’t have a hope in hell in outgrossing AC/DC in their home country next year. For one, because if U2 do play Australia, they’ll only be playing Sydney and/or Melbourne, judging by the strategically scheduled 360 tour and how there’ll only be 10 or so shows left in the schedule after the UK/European & North American legs finish next year and since they’ll need to room schedule South American shows too. Nowhere does it say that there are going to be 12-16 shows in the ROW, after the UK/European & North American legs are complete. Are even if there were, that probably would still not be enough for a FULL Australian leg.

If you want to spend HOURS dragging up my old quotes from other forums ( you must not have a life?) from FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, even though I’ve clearly stated to you that I’ve learned more about the concert business since then and have nailed down even more accurate way of predicting concert demand, then go right ahead. I can just as easily point out how you used to believe that no more than 1,000 fans from a nearby market would travel to see an act live. Or how you used to think that fans that lived more than 3 hours away from a market, if their market wasn’t being hit, would not travel to see an act live. Or how you said that no one knows just how many people will attend an event for sure, etc., etc., etc. And we both know that’s not true.

On the first UK/European leg of the A Bigger Bang tour :

The Stones had NO “strategically scheduled” shows in England or Scotland. They also had TWO Spanish shows initially scheduled but for whatever reason they were cancelled (though FOUR Spanish shows were performed on the second UK/European leg in 2007). YOU CONVENIENTLY DID NOT MENTION THESE SHOWS. So the Portugal show wasn’t “strategically scheduled”. Not playing the Easter Block of Europe at that point in time, doesn’t mean a thing regarding meeting or not meeting demand. So I have NO idea why you would argue that, apart from TRYING TO BLUR THE LINES. Also, The Stones played in Switzerland too, which diminishes your argument of “strategically scheduling” in Italy.

I have NO idea why you’re comparing the portions of the first North American legs of the 360 & A Bigger Bang tours, as it proves NOTHING, since there was NOT ONE “strategically scheduled” show on the first leg of the A Bigger Bang tour.

The Vertigo tour WAS NOT heavily underbooked because the way virtually the WHOLE 360 tour is “strategically scheduled” PROVES THAT IT WAS NOT. ANYONE who doesn’t even study the concert business can see that.

But since you keep asking for a quote, here’s a chance for interference’s to see just how full of it you really are:

UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - Rolling Stones top U2 - top grossing tour (page 2)

All one has to do is read this thread beginning at page 2. There are SEVERAL interesting quotes in this thread from Maloil / STING 2 but here’s just ONE posted on December 2, 2006 at 10:33am:

“U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour.”

Virtually the WHOLE 360 tour IS “strategically scheduled” . And that fact that you’re trying to deny that is HUGELY funny. We can go over ANY market you want. Just let me know. Also, I NEVER said that even if the 360 tour grosses $1 Billion that it wouldn’t top The Stones. If it grossed that, of course it would. If it grossed $800 million, it would too.

The Stones don’t need to “strategically schedule” an ENTIRE tour like U2 now does. Why? BECAUSE THE STONES ARE A LARGER DRAW THAN U2 IS. GET IT?

Again, you could only claim A HANDFUL OF MARKETS at best where the first UK/European leg of the A Bigger Bang tour was “strategically scheduled“. Whereas virtually the WHOLE 360 tour IS.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

ANYONE who’s studied the concert business knows that a select set of formulas are utilized to determine what concert demand will be for any given artist.


WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL?
 
I guess you don´t realize how stupid you sound every time you claim the "strategic scheduling".

Oh wait, it just dawned on me: the folks in LiveNation are big U2 fans and want U2 to be the highest grossing act in the world so they are "strategically scheduling" the 360 tour. Yet, they will plan a "nonsense scheduling" for the Stones the next time they go on tour.

Considering YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, that's pretty funny...:applaud:

I NEVER said Live Nation is scheduling a "nonsense scheduling" for The Stones. The Stones don't care if many of their shows are sold out or not. Whereas U2 do...and hence since U2 is attempting a stadium tour of North America for the first since 1997, is one of the main reasons why "strategic scheduling" is utilized. In fact, I bet U2 have a clause in their contract with Live Nation which states that each concert they perform has to be structured to officially "sell out" (with a few exceptions)...since the attendances from their '97-'98 PopMart stadium tour were extremely embarrassing for them and the media was all over them because of it...
 
Oh yeah, Regina and Winnipeg are "relatively" nearby, if you consider 1822 and 2232 km, respectively, to be "relatively nearby". LOL.

Hell, Winnipeg is closer to Toronto anyway.

Are you actually implying that NO ONE from the Pacific Northwest or Prairie Canada is going to travel to Vancouver this year to see U2? :lol:
 
Wait- So its not how many people you play to. Its not how much you gross. Its how much you gross based on how you schedule the tour....come on. I mean WTF is that. You cant be for real!!! If scheduling was that important, then wouldn't every act gross 500-700 million dollars????? We could argue that the big acts could but you didnt want to post Madonna or The Boss' tour numbers :)sexywink:) so we cant compare. Eitherway, I see that you are going to make any reason for U2 not being a huge draw (yes, I went back to the "huge draw" comment that you say you never mentioned but your posts basically elude to). Just go to a 360 tour show and see if you like it...just go to one (everyone here will agree to deduct the cost of your ticket from the final tour gross).

Your above statements are so completely ridiculous, there's just no point in responding to it, apart from this sentence.
 
Considering YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, that's pretty funny...:applaud:

I NEVER said Live Nation is scheduling a "nonsense scheduling" for The Stones. The Stones don't care if many of their shows are sold out or not. Whereas U2 do...and hence since U2 is attempting a stadium tour of North America for the first since 1997, is one of the main reasons why "strategic scheduling" is utilized. In fact, I bet U2 have a clause in their contract with Live Nation which states that each concert they perform has to be structured to officially "sell out" (with a few exceptions)...since the attendances from their '97-'98 PopMart stadium tour were extremely embarrassing for them and the media was all over them because of it...

So now your point is U2 is obssessed with selling out every single show?
Even if that was the case it has nothing to do with your previous claim that Live Nation is strategically scheduling U2 360 to maximize its gross and for that reason one has to dismiss the projected 650-700 M U2 360 is going to make.
 
So now your point is U2 is obssessed with selling out every single show?

No. It's been that way since the late 90s.



Even if that was the case it has nothing to do with your previous claim that Live Nation is strategically scheduling U2 360 to maximize its gross and for that reason one has to dismiss the projected 650-700 M U2 360 is going to make.

So what?
 



UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - Rolling Stones top U2 - top grossing tour (page 2)

All one has to do is read this thread beginning at page 2. There are SEVERAL interesting quotes in this thread from Maloil / STING 2 but here’s just ONE posted on December 2, 2006 at 10:33am:

“U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour.”

Virtually the WHOLE 360 tour IS “strategically scheduled” . And that fact that you’re trying to deny that is HUGELY funny. We can go over ANY market you want. Just let me know. Also, I NEVER said that even if the 360 tour grosses $1 Billion that it wouldn’t top The Stones. If it grossed that, of course it would. If it grossed $800 million, it would too.

Whats hugely funny is that in the link you provided, Maoil lists a boat load of Stones shows that did NOT sell out(but you have your reasons :lol:. You know what else is funny, you talk about "us" interference fans being full of it yet go to page two of this thread UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - U2 360 TOUR: Boxscores, Statistics (page 2)

Everyone in this forum is blasting you as well (not just Maoil). You keep making up CRAZY reasons for U2 360's current success and then say "You know nothing about the concert industry" as if we should all run away. Clearly we "interferencers" and the UKmix forum think you nuts and just have a hatred of U2.
 
Whats hugely funny is that in the link you provided, Maoil lists a boat load of Stones shows that did NOT sell out(but you have your reasons :lol:.

So what?


You know what else is funny, you talk about "us" interference fans being full of it yet go to page two of this thread UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - U2 360 TOUR: Boxscores, Statistics (page 2)

Everyone in this forum is blasting you as well (not just Maoil).

Not true.



And Maloil / STING 2 is a PROVEN LIAR. Why are you defending him?



You keep making up CRAZY reasons for U2 360's current success and then say "You know nothing about the concert industry" as if we should all run away.

NOTHING is made up.

Are you actually saying that NO ONE from the rest of Italy or Switzerland traveled to the Milan shows?

Are you actually saying that NO ONE from Belgium traveled to the Paris shows?

Are you actually saying that NO ONE from Portugal or the rest of Spain traveled to the Barcelona shows?

Are you actually saying that NO ONE from the rest of Germany traveled to the Amsterdam shows?

Are you actually saying that NO ONE from the rest of Germany traveled / are traveling to the Berlin or Gelsenkirchen shows?

Are you actually saying that NO ONE from the Czech Republic are traveling to the Chorzow shows?

Are you actually saying that NO ONE from Austria are traveling to the Zagreb shows?

Are you actually saying that NO ONE from the rest of Scandinavia are traveling to the Gothenburg shows?


Etc., etc., etc.


If so, then that's the only thing that's "CRAZY" here....



Clearly we "interferencers" and the UKmix forum think you nuts and just have a hatred of U2.

You nuts? :lol:

If you want to deny the FACTS, then whatever floats your boat.
 
Hasn't U2 already sold way more than 28,000 tickets in Dallas?

Well, it appears from the tickets left on the ticketmaster site that its closing in on a possible sellout. Thats 80,000 + 10,000(field) tickets or about 90,000 total tickets potentially. But, we won't know the exact figures until we see the boxscores after the show is played.

The 28,000 figure is Moggio's prediction for attendance at the concert. I think he is WAY OFF, although he likes to claim that Dallas is one of those area's in the United States that U2 is no longer popular in or something.
 
Well, it appears from the tickets left on the ticketmaster site that its closing in on a possible sellout. Thats 80,000 + 10,000(field) tickets or about 90,000 total tickets potentially. But, we won't know the exact figures until we see the boxscores after the show is played.

The 28,000 figure is Moggio's prediction for attendance at the concert. I think he is WAY OFF, although he likes to claim that Dallas is one of those area's in the United States that U2 is no longer popular in or something.

After actual figures are known I´m sure Moggio will come up with some of his ridiculous excuses such as Dallas was sold out because there was a massive flow of people from nearby areas. Sure he would have to explain why the Houston show was packed too.
 
Nowhere does it say that there are going to be 12-16 shows in the ROW, after the UK/European & North American legs are complete. Are even if there were, that probably would still not be enough for a FULL Australian leg.

It has been mentioned that the 2010 Europe leg will be 20 shows and the North American 2010 leg will be 20 shows. Thats 40 + 44 which equals 84. 100 shows has been mentioned for the total tour, so that leaves 16 more shows after 2010 legs of North America and Europe are complete at least.

If you want to spend HOURS dragging up my old quotes from other forums ( you must not have a life?) from FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, even though I’ve clearly stated to you that I’ve learned more about the concert business since then and have nailed down even more accurate way of predicting concert demand, then go right ahead.

Yes, you have learned so much more about the business, and have indeed nailed down and even more accurate way of predicting concert demand:

The results:

MOGGIO'S Predicted concert attendance for U2 360 North American shows:

Dallas: 28,000
Charlottesville: 31,000
Raleigh NC: 31,000
Norman OK: 31,000
Houston TX: 31,000

I can just as easily point out how you used to believe that no more than 1,000 fans from a nearby market would travel to see an act live.

In some cases that is indeed true. But either way, you have never published statistics proving your point one way or the other. Boxscores come with attendance and gross figures, not where each of the attendees came from. But, if someone wanted to conduct a scientific poll outside one of the venues, one might be able to determine just how many long distance attendees there are for certain markets.

Or how you used to think that fans that lived more than 3 hours away from a market, if their market wasn’t being hit, would not travel to see an act live.

I said the majority would not travel, and you've never presented any facts to dispute that.

Or how you said that no one knows just how many people will attend an event for sure, etc., etc., etc. And we both know that’s not true.

Ok master predicter, how many fans from the Denver metro area will be at the Norman Oklahoma City concert? How will you determine that in a way that can be verifiably confirmed by others?

The Stones had NO “strategically scheduled” shows in England or Scotland.

Well, not playing the Republic of Ireland certainly helped those shows, as did not playing Belgium, only one show in the Netherlands, and only one show in Paris. So, it was a good way to BEEF up the home UK market although they still FAILED to sellout any of the shows. The fact is, markets were skipped that impacted the English and Scotish markets in a good way. Strategic scheduling.

They also had TWO Spanish shows initially scheduled but for whatever reason they were cancelled (though FOUR Spanish shows were performed on the second UK/European leg in 2007). YOU CONVENIENTLY DID NOT MENTION THESE SHOWS. So the Portugal show wasn’t “strategically scheduled”.

LOL, what do you think happens when fans in one country get all of their shows cancelled? They find another show to go to in a nearby country. Its also a good way to cover up shows that are not selling well. Cancel and postpone them until the following year, allowing other markets played on the current leg, to help contribute to their success in the following year. Strategic Scheduling, a bit late, to help beef up demand in other area's.

Not playing the Easter Block of Europe at that point in time, doesn’t mean a thing regarding meeting or not meeting demand.

Oh yes it does. Where do you think many Eastern European fans went in the summer of 2006? Those that were willing to travel helped fill shows in Germany, Austria and Italy.

Live Nation has done the same thing with Madonna. Few or any Eastern European shows on the first leg, and then a whole bunch on the 2nd leg.

I have NO idea why you’re comparing the portions of the first North American legs of the 360 & A Bigger Bang tours, as it proves NOTHING, since there was NOT ONE “strategically scheduled” show on the first leg of the A Bigger Bang tour.

Only playing 17 North American stadium shows IS as much strategic scheduling as anything you have mentioned on this rather absurd issue.

The Vertigo tour WAS NOT heavily underbooked because the way virtually the WHOLE 360 tour is “strategically scheduled” PROVES THAT IT WAS NOT. ANYONE who doesn’t even study the concert business can see that.

Does not matter! U2 360 is being scheduled based on conditions NOW, not as they were in 2005! The U2 360 tour is different in many ways. It involves a stadium show that uses a greatly expanded 360 set allowing for many more fans per stadium show. Its also being done during the worst recession since the 1930s. To huge factors that did not exist in 2005.

Again, proof is when we look at the Dallas Boxscore and compare it to your prediction of only 28,000 in attendance and find that it is WAY OFF!

Vague assumptions and theories about strategic scheduling of a tour four years later under different market conditions is proof of nothing.

But since you keep asking for a quote, here’s a chance for interference’s to see just how full of it you really are:

UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - Rolling Stones top U2 - top grossing tour (page 2)

All one has to do is read this thread beginning at page 2. There are SEVERAL interesting quotes in this thread from Maloil / STING 2 but here’s just ONE posted on December 2, 2006 at 10:33am:

“U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour.”

LOL, I'd still stand by that qoute in 2005. REGIONS, is not the same as cities or individial markets. Your claim was all markets or cities, remember? But it is true, every region of the Vertigo tour was underbooked to a certain degree. Certainly not every market or city, but definitely every region.

Virtually the WHOLE 360 tour IS “strategically scheduled” . And that fact that you’re trying to deny that is HUGELY funny. We can go over ANY market you want. Just let me know. Also, I NEVER said that even if the 360 tour grosses $1 Billion that it wouldn’t top The Stones. If it grossed that, of course it would. If it grossed $800 million, it would too.

Ah, but I'm not denying that U2 and Live Nation have scheduled the tour in a way to bring in the maximum gross possible in an 18 month period. My point is that the Stones and Madonna do exactly the same thing. Live Nation schedules each tour in such a way as to maximize the gross.

The Stones don’t need to “strategically schedule” an ENTIRE tour like U2 now does. Why? BECAUSE THE STONES ARE A LARGER DRAW THAN U2 IS. GET IT?

Again, you could only claim A HANDFUL OF MARKETS at best where the first UK/European leg of the A Bigger Bang tour was “strategically scheduled“. Whereas virtually the WHOLE 360 tour IS.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

Well get this threw your head, saying the Stones are larger draw and don't use as much strategy in their scheduling does not make it so. GET IT?

The Stones only played 19 shows on their first leg, U2 are playing 24 shows and they are shows in a 360 format. Now you tell me who is being more cautious and careful with their FIRST LEG, based on that?


ANYONE who’s studied the concert business knows that a select set of formulas are utilized to determine what concert demand will be for any given artist.


Of course, because as you predicted, U2 attendance will only be the following at these shows:

Dallas: 28,000
Charlottesville: 31,000
Raleigh NC: 31,000
Norman OK: 31,000
Houston TX: 31,000


WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL?

Oh, I certainly would not try to fool a person who thinks that LIVE NATION works extra hard to strategically schedule U2 shows so as to give them a leg up on the Stones and then does not do the same for the Stones.:wink:
 
After actual figures are known I´m sure Moggio will come up with some of his ridiculous excuses such as Dallas was sold out because there was a massive flow of people from nearby areas. Sure he would have to explain why the Houston show was packed too.

But remember, according to him:

ANYONE who’s studied the concert business knows that a select set of formulas are utilized to determine what concert demand will be for any given artist.

Since his following predictions were based on a select set of formulas that are utilized to determine what concer demand will be in any market for any given artist, I guess these predictions will be very accurate.:wink:


MOGGIO attendance predictions based on his formula's:

Dallas: 28,000
Charlottesville: 31,000
Raleigh NC: 31,000
Norman OK: 31,000
Houston TX: 31,000
 
Considering YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, that's pretty funny...:applaud:

I NEVER said Live Nation is scheduling a "nonsense scheduling" for The Stones. The Stones don't care if many of their shows are sold out or not. Whereas U2 do...and hence since U2 is attempting a stadium tour of North America for the first since 1997, is one of the main reasons why "strategic scheduling" is utilized. In fact, I bet U2 have a clause in their contract with Live Nation which states that each concert they perform has to be structured to officially "sell out" (with a few exceptions)...since the attendances from their '97-'98 PopMart stadium tour were extremely embarrassing for them and the media was all over them because of it...

Oh, so now its just for the sake of attendance and not gross? Interesting.
 
After actual figures are known I´m sure Moggio will come up with some of his ridiculous excuses such as Dallas was sold out because there was a massive flow of people from nearby areas. Sure he would have to explain why the Houston show was packed too.

LOL! I already admitted MONTHS ago that my Dallas 360 tour show prediction was wrong. And how did I come to that prediction? Simply because EVERY Dallas show from 1997-2005 each grossed between $1.7 & $1.9 million. So why they hell would ANYONE think they could gross twice as much there now? But it's now obvious that that was ONE OF THE FEW markets that were underbooked on both of the Elevation & Vertigo tours, for whatever reason, since they'll be grossing in the $4 million range in Dallas in October...

As for Houston, it's a very similar situation...


 
And Maloil is a PROVEN LIAR.

Really? What exactly was "lied about" and where is your proof?



By the way, everyone here realizes that Stones fans in Spain, Ireland, southern Italy, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, Sweden, Hungary, Croatia and other places, who were willing to travel and could aford did on the Stones 1st leg of Europe contributing to the attendance at shows in Milan, Lisbon, Paris, England, Scotland, Denmark, Germany, and Austria.

Again, the Stones are NO different in this regard to U2 or Madonna.

But unlike the Stones 1st leg of Europe, the 1st Leg of U2 360 has 24 stadium shows instead of 19, and ALL shows are in a 360 configuration, while the Stones had the standard set up with no seats sold behind the stage, yet these still could not sellout any of their shows in Europe.
 
LOL! I already admitted MONTHS ago that my Dallas 360 tour show prediction was wrong. And how did I come to that prediction? Simply because EVERY Dallas show from 1997-2005 each grossed between $1.7 & $1.9 million.

Its called underbooking, but you have been absolutely emphatic that was not the case in Dallas. So assured were you, that you were predicting attendance of only 28,000.

since they'll be grossing in the $4 million range in Dallas in October...

Well, thats a little better, but your still going to be far off the mark with that prediction I think. If the show sells out, and average ticket price is in the $90 to $100 dollar range, the gross well be significantly above $4 million. They are selling tickets for seats at the very top of the stadium, last row at $95 dollars. 40% to 50% of the top tier of the stadium is being sold at the $95 dollar ticket price.
 
I heard that the UK/European & North American legs will total 90 shows.

Maloil can repost the HANDFUL of my incorrect predictions ‘til he’s blue in the face. But remember, he’s a PROVEN LIAR & MANIPULATOR.

Maloil KNOWS that far more than 1,000 fans travel to see an artist, if their market is NOT being hit. For example, comparing the Vertigo & 360 tours, all one has to do is compare the overall album sales and inflation rates from 2005 to 2009 to see that. And then consider as rule of thumb that roughly 35% of fans from a relatively nearby market will travel to a centralized market, if their market is not being hit. The Paris & Milan 360 tour shows FIT PERFECTLY.

No, you said NO fans that live more than 3 hours away from a market being hit would travel to see an artist, if their market wasn‘t hit.

As a rule of thumb that roughly 35% of fans from a relatively nearby market will travel to a centralized market, if their market is not being hit.

Your excuse for Ireland on the first leg of the A Bigger Bang tour is weak and doesn‘t hold, since it’s one of The Stones’ weakest markets in the UK/Europe. And I’m sure if you take a look at their grosses, you’ll find that. And the FACT is, that ONLY A HANDFUL OF MARKETS were “strategically scheduled” on the A Bigger Bang tour.

If your excuse for the Spanish shows held for the first UK/European leg of the A Bigger Bang tour, then there would NOT have been ANY shows in Portugal scheduled.

Not playing the Eastern Block of Europe at that point in time, doesn’t mean a thing regarding meeting or not meeting demand. There were SEVERAL German stadium shows, like there ALWAYS are.

Again, I have NO idea why you’re comparing the portions of the first North American legs of the 360 & A Bigger Bang tours, as it proves NOTHING, since there were virtually no “strategically scheduled” show on the first leg of the A Bigger Bang tour. Take a look at the WHOLE first North American leg of the A Bigger Bang tour and you’ll see that. But then again YOU’RE A PROVEN LIAR & MANIPULATOR .


ROTFLMFAO! So you're trying to spin this quote (BIG SURPRISE!!!) :

“U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour.”

Ok, well how about this one from the same post:

“Any artist who sells out a show or multiple shows in minutes or hours has yet to come close to satisfying the demand in that particular market.”

You CLEARLY indicate that since the Vertigo tour had quick official sellouts, that that means demand was heavily underbooked. But, the fact is, when you analyze overall album sales and inflation rates from 2005-2009, you’ll CLEARLY see that U2 wouldn’t have had to “strategically schedule” virtually the WHOLE 360 tour if your above quote was true. And of course part of the reason why virtually the WHOLE 360 tour is strategically scheduled is that many of the shows that are officially sold out would not be sold out (many of them would at roughly 65% capacity), if U2 had scheduled a FULL UK/European tour this year, without “strategic scheduling.”

The Stones and Madonna DO NOT have ANY WHERE NEAR the amount of “strategically scheduled” shows as U2 now do.

Are you joking?! ROTFLMFAO. The Stones not utilizing ANYWHERE NEAR as much “strategic scheduling” as U2 obviously does, PROVES that not only are The Stones are larger draw than U2 are, but also that they’re not as worried about whether or not their shows are sold out, like U2 are.

Again, The Stones DO NOT NEED to “strategically schedule” virtually an ENTIRE tour because they’re not worried about whether or not their shows are sold out, like U2 does and because they’re a larger draw than U2 is.

It’s definitely not out of the ordinary to think Live Nation will do whatever they can to make U2 look more popular than they are, simply because with U2, they have to. U2’s image is EVERYTHING. PopMart, anyone?
 
MOGGIO, ENOUGH ALREADY.

Clearly you are not a fan of U2 and your simply trolling. I for one am interested in the current U2 360 tour and come on these boards to find out the info. Every fucken day I come on and have to read through your rubbish. I suggest you go on a ACDC or Stones site and bullshit on over there. You are not welcome here. If you cant shut your pipe hole, i hope admin closes this thread or gives you a nice holiday away from this U2 forum.
 
MOGGIO, ENOUGH ALREADY.

Clearly you are not a fan of U2 and your simply trolling. I for one am interested in the current U2 360 tour and come on these boards to find out the info. Every fucken day I come on and have to read through your rubbish. I suggest you go on a ACDC or Stones site and bullshit on over there. You are not welcome here. If you cant shut your pipe hole, i hope admin closes this thread or gives you a nice holiday away from this U2 forum.

I am a fan Of U2, though. I just don't like their past three albums. What I state isn't BS. I provide OBJECTIVITY. Heard of it? And I don't care if you want to deny the facts, like virtually everyone here. A fact is a fact. Get used to it.
 
I heard that the UK/European & North American legs will total 90 shows.


Again, I have NO idea why you’re comparing the portions of the first North American legs of the 360 & A Bigger Bang tours, as it proves NOTHING, since there were virtually no “strategically scheduled” show on the first leg of the A Bigger Bang tour. Take a look at the WHOLE first North American leg of the A Bigger Bang tour and you’ll see that. But then again YOU’RE A PROVEN LIAR & MANIPULATOR .



You CLEARLY indicate that since the Vertigo tour had quick official sellouts, that that means demand was heavily underbooked. But, the fact is, when you analyze overall album sales and inflation rates from 2005-2009, you’ll CLEARLY see that U2 wouldn’t have had to “strategically schedule” virtually the WHOLE 360 tour if your above quote was true. And of course part of the reason why virtually the WHOLE 360 tour is strategically scheduled is that many of the shows that are officially sold out would not be sold out (many of them would at roughly 65% capacity), if U2 had scheduled a FULL UK/European tour this year, without “strategic scheduling.”

The Stones and Madonna DO NOT have ANY WHERE NEAR the amount of “strategically scheduled” shows as U2 now do.

Are you joking?! ROTFLMFAO. The Stones not utilizing ANYWHERE NEAR as much “strategic scheduling” as U2 obviously does, PROVES that not only are The Stones are larger draw than U2 are, but also that they’re not as worried about whether or not their shows are sold out, like U2 are.

Again, The Stones DO NOT NEED to “strategically schedule” virtually an ENTIRE tour because they’re not worried about whether or not their shows are sold out, like U2 does and because they’re a larger draw than U2 is.

It’s definitely not out of the ordinary to think Live Nation will do whatever they can to make U2 look more popular than they are, simply because with U2, they have to. U2’s image is EVERYTHING. PopMart, anyone?

And why on earth you are asking U2 to schedule a full european leg in 2009 when the RS didn´t do that either?
Say everything you like but at the end of the day the fact still remains:

-U2 2009: 24 european shows in 360 configuration sold out or nearly sold out
-RS 2006: 19 european shows in 270 configuration not sold out

So it is clear that IF U2 have met demand the same applies to the RS cos they played less shows with much less attendance. And don´t give me that crap about ticket prices cos everyone knows that U2 is perfectly able to charge the same as the Stones and still draw many more people than the RS in Europe.
 
I am a fan Of U2, though. I just don't like their past three albums. What I state isn't BS. I provide OBJECTIVITY. Heard of it? And I don't care if you want to deny the facts, like virtually everyone here. A fact is a fact. Get used to it.

Oh, now we know, you´re one of those 90´s fans that felt betrayed by U2 this decade. Get over it and enjoy one of U2´s finest albums: NLOTH.
 
No, you said NO fans that live more than 3 hours away from a market being hit would travel to see an artist, if their market wasn‘t hit.

Really, even though I have actually done that myself? Please, go dig this next imagined quote up please. :wink:

As a rule of thumb that roughly 35% of fans from a relatively nearby market will travel to a centralized market, if their market is not being hit.

What factual evidence do you have to support that claim?

Your excuse for Ireland on the first leg of the A Bigger Bang tour is weak and doesn‘t hold, since it’s one of The Stones’ weakest markets in the UK/Europe. And I’m sure if you take a look at their grosses, you’ll find that. And the FACT is, that ONLY A HANDFUL OF MARKETS were “strategically scheduled” on the A Bigger Bang tour.

Stones fans in Spain, Ireland, southern Italy, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, Sweden, Hungary, Croatia and other places, who were willing to travel and could aford did on the Stones 1st leg of Europe contributing to the attendance at shows in Milan, Lisbon, Paris, England, Scotland, Denmark, Germany, and Austria.

Again, the Stones are NO different in this regard to U2 or Madonna.

But unlike the Stones 1st leg of Europe, the 1st Leg of U2 360 has 24 stadium shows instead of 19, and ALL shows are in a 360 configuration, while the Stones had the standard set up with no seats sold behind the stage, yet these still could not sellout any of their shows in Europe.


If your excuse for the Spanish shows held for the first UK/European leg of the A Bigger Bang tour, then there would NOT have been ANY shows in Portugal scheduled.

Doesn't matter. The Stones knew by cancelling the Spanish shows that it would benefit other shows on the 1st leg that had not been played yet when the shows were cancelled.

Not playing the Eastern Block of Europe at that point in time, doesn’t mean a thing regarding meeting or not meeting demand. There were SEVERAL German stadium shows, like there ALWAYS are.

Eastern Europeans contributed to the German shows attendance figures in numbers that would have been lower had their been Eastern European shows. Unless, you believe that everyone in Eastern Europe patiently waited to see the Stones until 2007 when the played Eastern Europe, if your objective, you must admit that skipping Eastern Europe did have an impact on shows in Germany, Austria and Italy.

Again, I have NO idea why you’re comparing the portions of the first North American legs of the 360 & A Bigger Bang tours, as it proves NOTHING, since there were virtually no “strategically scheduled” show on the first leg of the A Bigger Bang tour. Take a look at the WHOLE first North American leg of the A Bigger Bang tour and you’ll see that. But then again YOU’RE A PROVEN LIAR & MANIPULATOR .

Again, the number of stadium shows they decided to play and where, is apart of strategic scheduling. So is the number of arena shows and where they decided to play them. No, it does not directly parallel, U2's schedule, but just as much thought and planning went into the schedule in order to maximize the Stones gross from that leg.

ROTFLMFAO! So you're trying to spin this quote (BIG SURPRISE!!!) :

“U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour.”

Sorry, but your the one who dug up the quote and TRIED desperately to spin it into something it was not. :wink: The quote is a good one and I definitely stand by it, but its NOT what you had earlier alleged.

Ok, well how about this one from the same post:

“Any artist who sells out a show or multiple shows in minutes or hours has yet to come close to satisfying the demand in that particular market.”

Nothing wrong with that statement.

You CLEARLY indicate that since the Vertigo tour had quick official sellouts, that that means demand was heavily underbooked. But, the fact is, when you analyze overall album sales and inflation rates from 2005-2009, you’ll CLEARLY see that U2 wouldn’t have had to “strategically schedule” virtually the WHOLE 360 tour if your above quote was true. And of course part of the reason why virtually the WHOLE 360 tour is strategically scheduled is that many of the shows that are officially sold out would not be sold out (many of them would at roughly 65% capacity), if U2 had scheduled a FULL UK/European tour this year, without “strategic scheduling.”

Once again, U2 Vertigo happened in 2005-2006. A totally different economic climate and a very different tour. U2 360 is using a production that substantially increases per show attendance. The Vertigo Tour was all arena's in North America, and while it was stadiums outside North America, those stadiums were done in a 270 configeration with smaller capacities per show. So its easy for anyone to see why there would be some scheduling differences. U2 360 is ALMOST the same size as the only leg of Europe that U2 did on the Vertigo tour. It has 24 shows to Vertigo's 32 shows. Thats 25% less shows, but the capacity per show based on the early results is 25% to 30% more per show. If U2 added 8 more shows for 32, this would not result in shows only being 65% full.


The Stones and Madonna DO NOT have ANY WHERE NEAR the amount of “strategically scheduled” shows as U2 now do.

Madonna has been the Queen of strategic scheduling her entire career. She just played her first show in Switzerland on her current tour EVER!

Are you joking?! ROTFLMFAO. The Stones not utilizing ANYWHERE NEAR as much “strategic scheduling” as U2 obviously does, PROVES that not only are The Stones are larger draw than U2 are, but also that they’re not as worried about whether or not their shows are sold out, like U2 are.

LIVE NATION does its best to bring in as much money as possible for each artist that it promotes. They do not engage in exclusive planning to help one artist over another. They plan each artist tour around their strengths and do the best they can to help the artist bring in as much money as possible.

NO one, is going to claim that if U2 360 outgrosses the next Stones tour, that it was only because of Live Nations strategic scheduling for U2.

Again, The Stones DO NOT NEED to “strategically schedule” virtually an ENTIRE tour because they’re not worried about whether or not their shows are sold out, like U2 does and because they’re a larger draw than U2 is.

The Stones FAILED to sellout almost every single one of their shows on both legs of the last European tour. Live Nation does their best to bring in as much money for the Stones. They would never hesitate to use any form of scheduling for the Stones if they thought it would help them make more money. So you can't claim that Live Nation is providing a service for U2 that they don't provide for the Stones or Madonna!

It’s definitely not out of the ordinary to think Live Nation will do whatever they can to make U2 look more popular than they are, simply because with U2, they have to. U2’s image is EVERYTHING. PopMart, anyone?

LOL, were talking GROSS here, MONEY. Live Nation is there to bring in as much money as possible for both bands. They are there to MAXIMIZE GROSS for both artist. They do not schedule or plan anything in such a way as to bring in more money for one artist than they would another.

Bottom line, which ever tour has the higher grossing figure when both are done will be the tour that is considered the commercial winner or biggest tour ever. No one is going to be claiming that one is actually bigger than the other because of strategic planning.
 
U2 360 TOUR

1ST LEG EUROPE


June 30, July 2, 2009
Barcelona, Spain
Camp Nou
GROSS: $19,825,497 (RECORD)
ATTENDANCE: 182,055 (RECORD)
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $108.90

July 7-8, 2009
Milan, Italy
Stadio San Siro
GROSS: $15,168,799 (RECORD)
ATTENDANCE: 153,806 (RECORD)
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $98.62

July 11-12, 2009
Paris, France
Stade De France
GROSS: $20,902,760 (RECORD)
ATTENDANCE: 186,544 (RECORD)
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $112.05



U2 360 TOUR: 1ST LEG EUROPE STATS

GROSS: $55,897,056
ATTENDANCE: 522,405
Average Gross: $9,316,176
Average Attendance: 87,068
Average Ticket Price: $107
Shows: 6
Sellouts: 6




Notice the average gross and attendance for these first 6 shows.
 
Unfortunately, this thread has not improved since the previous warning given. We'll be figuring out how to get the figures posted without all of the irrelevant discussion that was already posted previously in the Tour Forums thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom