Logistics

[ouizy]

Man there hasn't been a new thread here in a while - bringin me down....

So I have been thinking for a while what exactly it means to postpone a leg of tour from a logistical/equipment standpoint.

I am assuming the decision to postpone came rather quickly and albeit maybe not unexpected, I just wonder:

Until November,

-Where is the stage being stored?
-Where is the screen being stored?
-Was the screen purchased? If not and it was leased, did it effect any plans for who the pieces were to go to next?
-I am fairly certain the lights and sound were leased - did the band have to extend the lease through November? Was it all packed up and shipped elsewhere for others to use? Are they paying for this stuff for the next 7 months without using it?
-The easy part seems to be the people, I mean we read the Willie thing that the crew was basically asked not to show up in NZ, but the equipment - where is it all?
-Do you think the band had their instruments packed up at least and shipped home to be able to play for the next 7 months?
-I mean think of all the plans that had been made for the last leg (foodservices, transportation, security etc.) how does an organization change all those plans without taking a massive hit in the finances of the tour.
-Do you think there is tour insurance?
-If so I would imagine the benefits would kick in in the event of an emergency, but a personal emergency? I wonder if the band and Principle are covered for any losses and/or extra charges they will be spending for the next 7 months.
-Man - the more I think about it, the more things I can think of that would have been effected by this postponement (trucking, cranes, rentals of all the sound/light boards, all the communications equipment the band uses, hotel reservations, airfare for the crew, busses, cars, etc.)
-And if all the rented/leased stuff was returned for the hiatus to be used on other tours, imagine having to then get it all back and re-inventory everything, re-test it all, and possibly have to reprogram things.
-The band and management must have so many vendors supplying this tour, I could not even image what had to happen to put all this stuff, people, and plans on a 7 month hold between continents.

Now do not think I am insensitive, I am sure these were definitely not the first things the band was thinking about when they made this decision, but at some point these decisions had to be made, and it strikes my curiosity as to what is going on with all this stuff.

Thoughts?

 

[Lila64]

don't you have some laundry to take care of?

 

[wang_chung]

I am pretty sure that bands lease their staging from suppliers. I know of some companies who specialise in this. As for moving the gear, there are some companies (i think there is one called rock-it freight?) take care of the manority of logistics. I know for sure that a lot of companies have been put out bad by this, the flow on effects of something like this are huge. As for insurance... you can just about insure everythinh these days so why not a u2 tour!

Liam

 

[STING2]

Man there hasn't been a new thread here in a while - bringin me down....

So I have been thinking for a while what exactly it means to postpone a leg of tour from a logistical/equipment standpoint.

I am assuming the decision to postpone came rather quickly and albeit maybe not unexpected, I just wonder:

Until November,

-Where is the stage being stored?
-Where is the screen being stored?
-Was the screen purchased? If not and it was leased, did it effect any plans for who the pieces were to go to next?
-I am fairly certain the lights and sound were leased - did the band have to extend the lease through November? Was it all packed up and shipped elsewhere for others to use? Are they paying for this stuff for the next 7 months without using it?
-The easy part seems to be the people, I mean we read the Willie thing that the crew was basically asked not to show up in NZ, but the equipment - where is it all?
-Do you think the band had their instruments packed up at least and shipped home to be able to play for the next 7 months?
-I mean think of all the plans that had been made for the last leg (foodservices, transportation, security etc.) how does an organization change all those plans without taking a massive hit in the finances of the tour.
-Do you think there is tour insurance?
-If so I would imagine the benefits would kick in in the event of an emergency, but a personal emergency? I wonder if the band and Principle are covered for any losses and/or extra charges they will be spending for the next 7 months.
-Man - the more I think about it, the more things I can think of that would have been effected by this postponement (trucking, cranes, rentals of all the sound/light boards, all the communications equipment the band uses, hotel reservations, airfare for the crew, busses, cars, etc.)
-And if all the rented/leased stuff was returned for the hiatus to be used on other tours, imagine having to then get it all back and re-inventory everything, re-test it all, and possibly have to reprogram things.
-The band and management must have so many vendors supplying this tour, I could not even image what had to happen to put all this stuff, people, and plans on a 7 month hold between continents.

Now do not think I am insensitive, I am sure these were definitely not the first things the band was thinking about when they made this decision, but at some point these decisions had to be made, and it strikes my curiosity as to what is going on with all this stuff.

Thoughts?

The Vertigo Tour is already the highest Grossing tour in History with $335 million grossed already, just from ticket sales. The postponed 10 dates will put the figure just from ticket sales at around $400 million dollars. Even if the band did not have some type of insurence for problems like this, the cost of postponing 10 shows is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to these figures. The average cost per day of the tour is $300,000 dollars, and that is for the Stadium portion which is about 3 times more expensive than for the Arena's.

 

[ouizy]

But by that logic, they would be paying $300,000 a day for seven months to hold the equipment, with no income on the tour. It would sink th eship.

I am wondering literally where all the stuff is.

 

[eherncane]

They couldn't tour stadiums this summer because the equipment (outdoor stadium staging) was already rented out to someone else (per a U2 tour staff member)... hence that tour must be done with it the fall and they will have it back in time to due November shows.

 

[Utoo]

It's all being stored inside the Giant Lemon....in my garage.

 

[STING2]

But by that logic, they would be paying $300,000 a day for seven months to hold the equipment, with no income on the tour. It would sink th eship.

I am wondering literally where all the stuff is.

Thats $300,000 dollars a day when the tour is active. Right now, all the people employed by U2 for the tour are doing other things including working for other people. The equipment is simply in storage some place at a tiny fraction of the daily cost of when the tour is active. No need to pay people, pay fuel, or other transportation and logistical cost of keeping a tour on the road.

 

[Lila64]

It's all being stored inside the Giant Lemon....in my garage.

 

[matto]

It is usually cheaper for these big tours to just buy the equipment outright. If not, the touring company that was hired to manage the show would have bought the equipment and designed the staging especially for the tour.

I noticed alot of the equipment (lights/grid etc) is the same as was used during the Elevation tour. It is all alot simpler than it actually looks (I rig stuff like that a fair bit) and apart from the screen and curtain technology nothing is right out of the ordinary.

Most big tours just purchase this stuff as its really not expensive in the big scheme of things. Once the tour is over its really not of much use to anyone who owns it, its done the job, brought in the bucks and paid for itself a squillion times over.
Its usually sold off around the place - when your in the industry its a good way to pick up cheap(er) gear.

Last I heard the stuff had arrived in Australia and was sitting somewhere in shipping containers.

 

[matto]

Re: Re: Logistics

The Vertigo Tour is already the highest Grossing tour in History with $335 million grossed already, just from ticket sales. The postponed 10 dates will put the figure just from ticket sales at around $400 million dollars. Even if the band did not have some type of insurence for problems like this, the cost of postponing 10 shows is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to these figures. The average cost per day of the tour is $300,000 dollars, and that is for the Stadium portion which is about 3 times more expensive than for the Arena's.

That daily cost would be largely crewing and costs associated with hiring venues and local equipment. When its in holding none of this is being incurred. And of course the biggest cost would be in the transportation of crew and gear. The outdoor setup needs shipping containers in 747's to get around.

 

[kennerado]

Yes, somebody posted on an Australian email list that the stuff is in storage in Sydney.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I was told that in the week between everything touching down in Sydney, and initial arrangements being sorted (ie crew goes home, where to store stuff) they were losing $500K a day.

This leg will now stand zero chance of making a dollar, will in fact probably come in at a considerable loss, even with extra shows added, but as STING said, it won't be too much of an issue on the bottom line.

 

[matto]

I was told that in the week between everything touching down in Sydney, and initial arrangements being sorted (ie crew goes home, where to store stuff) they were losing $500K a day.

This leg will now stand zero chance of making a dollar, will in fact probably come in at a considerable loss, even with extra shows added, but as STING said, it won't be too much of an issue on the bottom line.

I would doubt that - there would definitely have been a high cost of cancellation (in fees, venue fees etc etc). This would all be a total cost and not a 'daily' spend. Im sure it would have been all budgeted for.

 

[DubbalinGirl]

Re: Re: Logistics

The Vertigo Tour is already the highest Grossing tour in History with $335 million grossed already, just from ticket sales. The postponed 10 dates will put the figure just from ticket sales at around $400 million dollars. Even if the band did not have some type of insurence for problems like this, the cost of postponing 10 shows is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to these figures. The average cost per day of the tour is $300,000 dollars, and that is for the Stadium portion which is about 3 times more expensive than for the Arena's.

It may be the highest grossing tour but it didn't break even until September 2005, so it is not as harmless to the bottom line as we'd like to think, when the first 6 months of the tour were net zero for the band.

All the details here: http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/06/19/story5748.asp

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Logistics

It may be the highest grossing tour but it didn't break even until September 2005, so it is not as harmless to the bottom line as we'd like to think, when the first 6 months of the tour were net zero for the band.

All the details here: http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/06/19/story5748.asp

Well, the interviewer did not actually qoute McGuinness saying that except for the line "because of the start up cost involved", so its likely that he may have been confused about what was being stated.

The fact is, during the first 4 and half months, the tour GROSSED $204,286,605 dollars. There is no way in hell, the tour cost that much up to that point. The Elevation tour 4 years earlier only Grossed $143 million dollars total and raked in the biggest profits of the bands career to that point per show. The arena portions of this tour are not significantly more expensive than the arena portions of the Elevation tour.

While the Stadium leg is a much larger expense than the Arena legs, its not when adjusted for inflation any more expensive than POPMART. The global 93 date POPMART tour cost $70 million dollars and gave the band $100 million dollar plus profit. Gross for the tour was 171 million dollars from ticket sales. On the road, the cost per day was $214,000 dollars.

The band are generating massive grosses with costs that are about the same as those seen on the Elevation Tour and POPMART tour. Adjusted for inflation, POPMART was a more expensive undertaking yet most of the GROSS from ticket sales was pure profit for the band.

POPMART GROSS was $171 million dollars

Elevation GROSS was $143 million dollars

Vertigo Tour Gross to date is $333,206,884 million dollars with 10 more shows to go bringing in another $50 million dollars in GROSS. Total Gross for this tour will be nearly $400 million dollars just from ticket sales.

Also, the Vertigo tour has curently played to 3,983,650 people and will play to around another 500,000 from the 10 remaining stadium shows puting total attendance for the tour at 4.5 million.

When album sales and merchandice sales are figured in, the amount of profit the band will walk away from the Vertigo tour era is simply staggering. It will be more than the band made from the previous 10 years combined and more than most popular artist will ever make in their entire careers.

There has never been this much difference between what the band profits and what the bottem line cost are, ever in the bands career.

 

[STING2]

I was told that in the week between everything touching down in Sydney, and initial arrangements being sorted (ie crew goes home, where to store stuff) they were losing $500K a day.

This leg will now stand zero chance of making a dollar, will in fact probably come in at a considerable loss, even with extra shows added, but as STING said, it won't be too much of an issue on the bottom line.

The 10 shows will GROSS over $50,000,000 million dollars combined. Consider the bands last tour of Australia GROSSED $5,895,555 from four shows. U2's first show in Syndey will Gross more than all four POPMART shows combined! Then the band will play another 5 shows in Australia.

The POPMART tour, adjusted for inflation cost just as much as the Vertigo Tour. On POPMART, the Australian shows were around the break even point. Adjusted for inflation, that 1997 GROSS in 2005 dollars is 6.9 million dollars, yet the band will GROSS $30 million dollars just in Australia on Vertigo. So comparitively, the band broke even with a $6.9 million Gross in Australia last time around with a tour who's logistical scale and cost are the same as the Vertigo Tour. This time around the GROSS is $30 million dollars just for Australia from 6 shows in roughly the same amount of time that the four shows on POPMART were played. Without the cost of postponement, this is a around $23 million dollar profit for the band just from ticket sales. The postponement will take a few million dollars away from that at most, probably something that could be covered by the $4 million dollars the band will make in merchandise sales from the 6 Sydney shows.

 

[zepher25]

a huge slice of the profit from the tour wont go to U2 but to interscope records

 

[STING2]

a huge slice of the profit from the tour wont go to U2 but to interscope records

The record company to my knowledge has no involvement with the tour, except there might be some small royalties from songs being played live that were recorded on the lable. Ever since the Joshua Tree Tour, U2 has worked with major promotion companies, like Michael Cohl's or others to organize the tour.

 

[swirling_eddy]

a huge slice of the profit from the tour wont go to U2 but to interscope records

Why? What does Interscope have to do with U2's performances?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way they could receive money from the tour is from elevated album sales.

 

[zepher25]

the profit margin depends on the contracts and weather or not the band own the rights to the songs or if the record company own the rights, and of course lets face it HTDAAB will be being sold left right and centre at the concerts

 

[swirling_eddy]

From what I understand U2 owns the rights to almost everything involving them (at least later stuff), just like Midnight Oil did.

Also, doesn't everyone already have HTDAAB? They should considering you can get the "tour edition" for under $15 at BigW!

(I thought I got a deal at JB when it came out! )

 

[zepher25]

the merchandice places will all be selling DVD's, Singles, Albums, T-Shirts everything

 

[STING2]

the merchandice places will all be selling DVD's, Singles, Albums, T-Shirts everything

Most of the bands profit comes from that actual sell of the tickets. I saw the show four times and don't recall Albums, Singles or DVD's being sold at the merchandise stands, and that includes shows in Europe and the United States. T-Shirts, Tour books, posters, and other such things belong to the band, not the record company. The record company of course makes money off of the sell of recorded material, but that is not being sold at the shows.

The Record Company has not played a major or role or perhaps any role in a U2 tour since the early 1980s.

 

[DubbalinGirl]

Most of the bands profit comes from that actual sell of the tickets.

Where are you getting your information from? Larry has said in NUMEROUS interviews over the years that all the money made is in the merchandising, which is why he is in charge of the details, down to the quality of the products. (It costs less than a dollar to make a t-shirt that they sell for $40+, that's not good profit?). The overwhelming effect of merchandising on tour profit is also referenced in the article from the Sunday Business Post that I posted yesterday. (Whom, I might add, as a business journal, know a thing about the terminology "turning a profit", so I doubt they misquoted McGuinness).

Other than your personal empirical research, do you have any facts to back up the quote above? Because from what I've read, most bands don't make much at all on ticket sales after they've paid their expenses, it's all in the concessions.

 

[STING2]

Where are you getting your information from? Larry has said in NUMEROUS interviews over the years that all the money made is in the merchandising, which is why he is in charge of the details, down to the quality of the products. (It costs less than a dollar to make a t-shirt that they sell for $40+, that's not good profit?). The overwhelming effect of merchandising on tour profit is also referenced in the article from the Sunday Business Post that I posted yesterday. (Whom, I might add, as a business journal, know a thing about the terminology "turning a profit", so I doubt they misquoted McGuinness).

Other than your personal empirical research, do you have any facts to back up the quote above? Because from what I've read, most bands don't make much at all on ticket sales after they've paid their expenses, it's all in the concessions.

First, all of my figures in terms of Gross and Attendance come from Amusement Business which has been tracking the concert industry since 1977.

The cost of the POPMART tour per day was detailed in the newspaper USA Today, CNN, as well as Carter Allens Book: Outside Is America. The cost of the ZOO TV tour per day is also given in Carter Allens Book.

In addition, Billboard Magazine, the business magazine of the music industry which also reprints Amusement Business figures stated the contract between Michael Cohl and U2 for the POPMART tour. U2 were guaranteed a $100 million dollar profit for the tour with Michael Cohl taking all the risk if the tour did not break even in certain markets. Michael Cohl also made a profit as well.

The fact is the band has made a profit, small or large from every tour they have been on since the War tour just from the sell of tickets. The cost of ZOO TV tours and POPMART tours is known as well as what was GROSSED. Even if the band only made small profits on these tours as some have claimed, the cost of production adjusted for inflation is not very different from the Vertigo tour, yet the GROSS from ticket sales are much higher than those previous tours yielding the band massive profits due to the substantially increased difference in cost and gross.

U2 are in a different realm from most bands. Most bands do not charge an average of 100 dollars a ticket and sell over 100,000 tickets for two or more shows in a single city.

The band will GROSS around $400 million dollars by the time the tour finishes. The POPMART tour with higher production cost GROSSED 171 million dollars, $201 million dollars in inflation adjusted terms, and this tour made a huge profit. On POPMART, BONO stated the band were willing to go to some third world markets and not make money, but they were not willing to go anywhere and lose money.

Consider the venues the band played on the POPMART tour and the shows that were cancelled. The band still played some shows in North America that only had 20,000 in attendance with a GROSS of about $1 million dollars, even though the expected attendance was suppose to be around 40 to 50 thousand people. But the band did cancel a added show in Philadelphia when the band only sold around 10,000 tickets. They kept an added show in San Francisco that only had 22 thousand tickets sold. So the break even point per show for them was considered to be around 20,000 tickets on POPMART. Also notice that the show in Perth Australia which could only hold 13,000 people, had the ticket prices adjusted upwards so the GROSS came out to $1 million dollars plus.


Larry says a lot of things, and while he may be in charge of the fan club, he is not the bands accountant or manager. In addition I have an interview with Larry and Bono prior to POPMART where Larry is going on and on about the cost and the risk of a major tour and finally BONO cuts him off to talk about how much money they are going to make to which Larry angerly says, "But I don't want other people to know that". Thats Larry for ya, he wants to potray the false image of the band that they are still this starving little band playing for their dinner and a cot to sleep on at night.

More importantly, just look at the last two tours. The band GROSSED $143 million dollars on the 113 date Elevation Tour. The band will GROSS $400 million dollars on the 128 date Vertigo Tour. These are the facts. One knows the band made profits at most stops on POPMART with production cost 3 times that of Elevation since it was all in Arena's. The massive increase in ticket prices though on Elevation meant the band GROSSED nearly as much per show in Arena's, but with 1/3 the cost, yielded a higher profit. Now in 2005-2006, the band will be GROSSING double of what they did on POPMART when adjusted for inflation, but with cost that are smaller because half of the tour was in Arena's while all of POPMART was in Stadiums. The band made a huge Profit on POPMART, which adjusted for inflation GROSSED $200 million dollars. Vertigo will GROSS $400 million dollars with smaller production cost. DO THE MATH. The profit just from ticket sales is enormous. There is only one other artist on the planet that can GROSS and profit as much as U2, and their the Rolling Stones.

There has only been at most 5 artist in history that GROSSED more than $200 million dollars from a single tour and only two that have GROSSED more than $300 million dollars. U2 were set to be the first artist in history to GROSS over $400 million dollars, but with the tour postponement, they will be the second artist because the Rolling Stones will hit that mark in August. There are dozens of artist that make strong profits from the sell of tickets, but at the end of the tour their GROSS is usually under $50 million dollars. Compare that with U2 who will GROSS $400 million dollars on this tour alone.


Any magazine whether its the Billboard music business magazine or the Sunday Business Post make mistakes. In addition, Paul McGuinness does not go around reporting precise profits for the band as doing so could hurt the bands image. You have to take what he says with a grain of salt when it comes to these things, because of his job.

What cannot be debated though are the facts from Amusement Businness about what U2 grosses per show and what other artist in the industry gross. You can see the top Concert Grosses per week in Billboard magazine which list the top 40 Concert Grosses per week. www.Billboard.com will let you see the top 10. In fact, go here to look at the current top 10 for this week: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/boxscore.jsp

I can show you the concert attendance and GROSS for nearly every U2 show from the 93 shows on POPMART, to the 113 shows for Elevation, to every single one of the 118 shows of the current Vertigo world tour.

The cost of production on the Vertigo tour is not substantially different from the cost of Elevation for the Arena's of the cost of POPMART for the stadiums, and its a fact that the band made huge profits on both of these tours from ticket sales. If the cost suggested by "Sunday Business Post" were correct, then the POPMART tour and Elevation Tour would have lost enormous sums of money. Realize the recent Elevation tour only Grossed $143 million dollars compared to an alleged cost of over $204 million dollars for the Vertigo tour which is mainly in Arena's like Elevation was. Its simply impossible and a mistake to simply go one one line printed in a magazine which enivitably make mistakes.

No one knows precisely what the band makes, except their accountants. But the GROSS figures for the shows are public information and can be compared with other data from other artist and known production cost in the industry, as well as the sources for the cost per day of other U2 tours.

Here is another way of looking at it. The band at best only makes 10 dollars per person from merchandizing, according to the Sunday Business Post article you listed, which will mean by the end of the Vertigo Tour they will have made $45 million dollars in this area. Consider that from ticket sales the band will GROSS $400 million dollars. For your claim,(or Larry's claim) to be true that the band makes far more money from merchandise than from the sell of tickets, the tour would have to cost over $360 million dollars. That is simply impossible given that the production size and length of tour is similar to POPMART for the Stadiums and Elevation for the Arenas. In fact, the cost is less than the POPMART tour when you adjust for inflation because the POPMART tour was all Stadiums while the Vertigo tour has been 60% in Arena's which have about 1/3 the cost of a stadium show.

 

[ntalwar]

In 2002, Billboard reported that U2 "boast an estimated net worth of 676 million euros ($683 million). "

You don't acquire that type of money from selling merchandise.

 

[ouizy]

Actually - yes you do.

Typically on a tour it is the merch that makes the money - not the tickets. This is pretty muc a known fact for almost any band - that is why so many bands so aggressively hock their goods outside a show.

A person can only buy one ticket for the seat behind his or her ass, yet at the show they can and do buy numerous T-shirts, jackets, buttons, pens, posters, etc. etc.

It is also an easy way to dispense income among promoters. They would either get a cut of the tickets, merch or both - I think it is typically the tickets that they get a share of because it is hard to determine how much stuff will be sold in any given city, but the tickets are exact no matter what.

And, yes, this IS why Larry takes such a strong role in the merch for the band - so the quality and quantity is controlled.

 

[STING2]

Actually - yes you do.

Typically on a tour it is the merch that makes the money - not the tickets. This is pretty muc a known fact for almost any band - that is why so many bands so aggressively hock their goods outside a show.

A person can only buy one ticket for the seat behind his or her ass, yet at the show they can and do buy numerous T-shirts, jackets, buttons, pens, posters, etc. etc.

It is also an easy way to dispense income among promoters. They would either get a cut of the tickets, merch or both - I think it is typically the tickets that they get a share of because it is hard to determine how much stuff will be sold in any given city, but the tickets are exact no matter what.

And, yes, this IS why Larry takes such a strong role in the merch for the band - so the quality and quantity is controlled.

That may be the standard for your average artist on the road, but U2 is light years away from your average artist on the road.

The band make only about 10 dollars per person on merchandise per show. For an entire tour like the Vertigo Tour, that comes out to 45 million dollars, and is a small fraction of what the band receives from ticket sales. The GROSS figure for the Vertigo Tour will be $400 million dollars when the band finishes its remaining shows. Only 1/4 of that gets sucked up by the cost, the rest goes to the band. The band made huge profits on the Elevation tour that GROSSED $143 million dollars. While the Stadium portions of Vertigo cost 3 times as much as Elevation Arena shows, the Vertigo Arena shows are roughly the same cost and constitute more than half of the current tour. But this time out, the Bands Gross just from ticket sales will be $400 million dollars compared to $143 million dollars for Elevation where the band made huge profits. Do the math and I think you'll see what I mean.

Coldplay GROSSED $24.1 million dollars in 2005 while Green Day GROSSED $36 million dollars from ticket sales in 2005. These are two huge bands, but even with their Gross ticket sales figures combined, they are a tiny fraction of U2's figure. Its obvious that Green Day and Coldplay as well as virtually the rest of the industry have merchandise sales as a big part of their profit. But when you GROSS a record breaking $400 million dollars from touring like U2 on Vertigo, the vast majority of your profit comes from the sale of tickets.

 

[DubbalinGirl]

Only 1/4 of that gets sucked up by the cost, the rest goes to the band.

Source, please?

I'm willing to wager that is not even close to their costs. Yes, U2 are light years ahead, and I say this translates to significantly more cost than Green Day's or Coldplay's costs. I don't think they have nearly the talent behind them like O'Herlihy, Schoo, Morgan, O'Sullivan, Williams, etc. And they certainly don't have the technology. And both the people and the technology costs serious money. Do you think ticket prices jumped to the mid $100s just for kicks? No, they have to cover COSTS. The fact that they had to play for nearly 6 months before they even broke even is an indication of the staggering COSTS involved. Those folks don't work for free and they certainly don't pay their way around the world.

And what were the face values of the tickets on Green Day's tour, and Coldplay's? Not nearly $100 face, you say? Yeah, I thought so... (Note, Coldplay's top ticket in my area is $75)

And I don't think you need a lesson on NET vs. GROSS, do you? Because now that people are throwing around net worth and stuff, this is getting all bunged up.

$10 a head on merchandise is HUGE. When you consider that a t-shirt costs less than $1 to make (I know for a fact, I did screen printing to get myself through college) and they sell it for $40? And programs that cost $30-$40? You think those cost more than a fiver to make? There is clearly more made on merchandise than ticketing.

I think you need to reconsider your GROSS argument in light of the reality of finances.

I feel better now, Ouizy agrees with me! I knew I wasn't hallucinating!