blueeyedgirl said:
Going back to the original post, about U2's seemingly high prices and how people are comparing them to the Stones, Madonna etc etc, I think what hasn't been highlighted is that these artists haven't made a career of being humanitarians, changing the face of how music and business is done and so forth the way U2 have built a career on. We therefore expect so much more from U2. We personally feel let down when U2 don't live up to our ideals of how U2 should be.
Why does the band that blew me away with their music when I saw them in 1984 (and it only cost $19.95 ) feel they need all the tricks and gimmicks to impress us?
$19.95 to see U2 in 1984...
Too bad I really wasn't old enough to see them then. If only we could go back in time...
I have paid very high prices to see Madonna in concert - otherwise U2 is the only act I have paid very high prices for. I like a lot of the Stones and McCartney's music, but I won't pay the big bucks to see them because I don't feel like their music is really part of my generation and I wouldn't fully appreciate it for the money. If somebody wanted to take me to their shows for free of course I would go.
I still think U2 charges fairly reasonable prices compared to these other acts even though they are still up there in the same league with them. For $50, you at least have the "chance" to get into the ellipse and be up front & center close to the band. Granted, most of these tix end up selling for a lot more. For McCartney, Madonna, and the Stones, $50 won't even get you into the arena, or at best might get you a nosebleed seat.
Obviously, there has been plenty of demand to keep prices high on this tour. IMO, this has been the hardest of their tours to get face value tickets for - and that's even with TONS of shows! Given the amount that the U2 tix have sold from brokers & on ebay, U2 could actually make an argument that they didn't charge enough on this tour. Had they charged more, the shows most likely still would have sold out, brokers would have less profit margin, and therefore more money would have gone into U2's pockets rather than the brokers' pockets. I'm pretty sure that's why Madonna & McCartney do the $300 thing up front. The brokers end up losing out big time with them.
It may not be humanitarian, but I'd rather see U2 pocket the profits than ticket brokers or scalpers.
U2 could lower the prices, but the tickets would become even harder to get, more would be sold second-hand, and these second-hand tickets would still sell for just as high. I'm not sure there's any way you could "really" drive prices down unless scalping was just flat out made illegal - and this became enforced.