Stadiums in the US?

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.
bridonohue said:
regardless of the records, the second night at yankee stadium was a slow seller, and did not sell out. at least several thousand seats in the upper level, primarily behind home plate did not sell. i was there, but you can see this in the footage shot at the concert for the wild horses video and the fox special.
as i said earlier, third night giants had a pathetic turnout, and probably would have been cancelled if it was a one off show instead of a three night stand.
by putting on a stadium show and not selling out, u2 hurts its brand. mcguiness knows it's better to sell several nights in an arena than play to the same number of people in a stadium and leave seats unsold. every media review of shows at popmart where they had not sold out mentioned it. the press reported it as if it was a dissapointment, and it ended up being veiwed that way.
record sales is a horrible indicator of a bands ability to put butts in seats. usher will sell at least twice as many records as u2, but will not sell half as many tickets. the greatful dead were able to sell almost no albums but sell out stadiums continuously. u2 will sell out all their arena shows in the us, and all their stadium shows in europe, but i would be shocked if they attempted to play stadiums in the us this tour. i don't see the incentive for them.

Regardless of what your view of the seating may have been simply with the eye, its a fact that U2 sold a combined 104,000 seats for their two shows at Yankee stadium in 1992 and every ticket that was actually put on sale was sold! Stadium concerts often do not use the full capacity of a stadium when selling tickets. Unless you have records showing how many tickets they sold per day after the on sale date for the 4th "area" show, you have no way of saying if it is a really slow seller or not. There may have been seats sold in some other area of the stadium or extra seats added on the field leaving a batch of seats empty in the upper levels. Regardless, you cannot accurately gage these things simply by looking.

For the POPMART tour, any show that had at least 20,000 tickets sold broke even and anything beyond 20,000 was pure profit. The band elected to play stadiums in Oregan and Utah that had max capacities of only 30,000! Attendance for the third Giant Stadium show was almost 30,000! Thats not pathetic when you consider that the vast majority of artist CANNOT get that number of attendance for even one show. Metallica without popular support bands was only able to play one show at Giant Stadium with 39,500 people in attendance back in 1998.

Selling 30,000 tickets anywhere is not pathetic, let alone for a third show after two sellout stadium shows.

As far as canceling shows, the band played Jacksonville Florida on the POPMART tour despite the fact that only 15,000 fans were in attendance. The show would have only been cancelled if they thought there was no chance of getting to the 20,000 mark and as it is they almost hit the 30,000 mark for that Giants stadium show despite the fact they only had 30 days to promote it from the time they announced until the show.

Regardless of how the media thinks about things, its not a failure when a band makes a large profit and U2 had the highest GROSS figure of their entire career with POPMART doing $171 million in Business worldwide and that figure is still the 4th largest figure ever, only beaten by the Rolling Stones.



Record sales is NOT a horrible indicater of a bands ability to put Butts in seats. USHER will put more butts in seats if he is selling 8 million instead of 4 million. STING puts more buts in seats when he sells 3 million instead of 1 million. U2 will put more butts in seats if they sell 4.5 million of "BOMB" this year as compared to 1.5 million they sold for POP.

Instead of comparing artist, look at the artist individually. If more people are purchasing a new album, there are going to be more people willing to see the artist in concert. U2 has a base and can sellout some stadiums in the USA even when an album like POP only sells 1.5 million. That concert ticket buying base grows though when you have an album that sales 3 million or 5 million.

U2 booked stadium tours in the United States that become some of the most attended statdium shows of all time on the Joshua Tree tour and ZOO TV tours. These stadium shows were booked when the albums those tours were supporting had reached the 2.5 million to 3 million sales mark in the USA.

By contrast POP only got to within half of that sales level when stadium tours for Joshua and Achtung were booked. The POPMART tour in the USA experienced a level of demand overall which was about half that of the ZOO TV tour. So this is consistent with the album sales level.


But if you know of a better indicater of concert ticket sales than album sales, let us know.
 
i agree that comparisons between artists is not the best way to look at it, and u2's ticket sales should be compared to previous tours and album sales. they probably can sell more tickets on this tour than on popmart, but i do not think they would put two different productions on in the us, an arena show and a stadium show, on the third leg, but we will see in a few weeks. where are you getting the ticket sold data from? i would be curious to look at it.

you don't believe me about yankee stadium not selling out, but it didn't. originally the band were going to put both giants shows and yankee shows on sale the same day, but they were worried that might over saturate the market. they waited a few weeks before they announced and put the yankee shows on sale. the first show sold out fast but the second one never did. the books are not accurate. maybe they stated all tickets that were made available were sold out, and therefore if they held back large batches of tickets then they could technically still call it a sellout. either way, large portions of sections in the upper level behind home plate were not sold, which had been sold the night before. empty sections are pretty easy to see and they were not there the night before. regardless of any book keeping tricks that are always played with concerts (i believe i read a while ago on pollstar that many concerts are considered sold out as long as they sell over 85% of tickets) the show was most definately not sold out. some people lucked out, because they were the crapppiest seats in the house.
 
bridonohue said:
i agree that comparisons between artists is not the best way to look at it, and u2's ticket sales should be compared to previous tours and album sales. they probably can sell more tickets on this tour than on popmart, but i do not think they would put two different productions on in the us, an arena show and a stadium show, on the third leg, but we will see in a few weeks. where are you getting the ticket sold data from? i would be curious to look at it.

you don't believe me about yankee stadium not selling out, but it didn't. originally the band were going to put both giants shows and yankee shows on sale the same day, but they were worried that might over saturate the market. they waited a few weeks before they announced and put the yankee shows on sale. the first show sold out fast but the second one never did. the books are not accurate. maybe they stated all tickets that were made available were sold out, and therefore if they held back large batches of tickets then they could technically still call it a sellout. either way, large portions of sections in the upper level behind home plate were not sold, which had been sold the night before. empty sections are pretty easy to see and they were not there the night before. regardless of any book keeping tricks that are always played with concerts (i believe i read a while ago on pollstar that many concerts are considered sold out as long as they sell over 85% of tickets) the show was most definately not sold out. some people lucked out, because they were the crapppiest seats in the house.

The Joshua Tree tour was a mix of Arena and Stadium shows, often the same market would have both arena shows and a Stadium show.

Amusement Business has been tracking and recording official concert business figures since 1977. These figures are reported in Billboard Magazines "BOXSCORE" Column. Amusement Business also has its own magazine. I have copied the figures for U2 and other artist from old issues of Billboard Magazine that are on microfilm at the library. Every week, Billboard has a page for "Concert Boxscores" which is the official data reported by Amusement Business.

Amusement Business reported only figures from North America from 1977 through 1994. In 1995, they started reporting global figures. Its an excellant source of precise information on concert attendance and concert gross figures, because Newspapers will often guess or overreport or under report the true attendance number.

You can access this material the old way by going to a library that keeps back issues of Billboard on microfilm, or you can become a member on the intertnet to either www.Billboard.com or www.amusementbusiness.com . I have of course done things the old way over the years as I did not want to pay money to either of the sites just to look at the information.

If you decide to become a member of either site, please tell us, because it is obviously a much faster way to look up such information than going to the library and working with microfilm.

Every week www.billboard.com will report the top 10 "Boxscore" concerts in its "Boxcore" section for that week. The magazine though will often have the top 50 for that week. Shows as small as 1,000 seat theaters sometimes make the top 50 list, if the Gross total from ticket sales is high enough. A membership to billboard would also give you access to full chart information. The Billboard 200 which tracks album sales every week in the USA as well as a variety of airplay charts for all types of music. Billboard uses the information audited and reported by Amusement Business in its Boxscore. A membership to Amusement Business would just focus on the concert industry and would not have album sales charts and airplay charts.


I believe you are telling the truth about what you saw at Yankee Stadium but the fact that 1 or more sections in an upper level part of the stadium were empty is irrelevant to whether the show was a "sellout" by industry standards.

The information from Amusement business is FACT! It is the actual Business information to include all tickets sold and all money made from tickets sold. Combined Capacity for the two Yankee Stadium shows was set at 104,000 and all 104,000 tickets were sold. The capacity for the first night could have been set as high as 60,000 seats meaning that capacity for the second night was only set at 44,000 seats. Either way, all tickets put on sale were sold. Does that mean every possible seat in the stadium was sold, NO.

In fact, its even possible the first night was not a completely soldout in the sense that every single possible seat was used. By the industry standard of selling all tickets put on sale, it was a sellout. By the standard of selling every potential seat in the stadium regardless of where it was located, it probably was not a 100% sellout, but then the first night may have not been a full sellout in that sense either. Without certain information though, it would not be possible to tell whether or not the first night was a complete sellout. All that is known is that whatever the exact capacity the band set for the first night, all tickets for that "set" capacity were sold. Sometimes artist will play slightly reduced capacities on a first night, in order to push ticket demand into the second night.

In the end though, all 104,000 tickets that U2 put on sell for the two combined Yankee Stadium shows were sold!
 
you seem to know a lot about this. Could you explain this more to me. (by the way, i am not being sarcastic, i am interested) so the term "sellout" is subjective and capable of being manipulated to report shows as soldout, even if they are not at capacity (and by capacity i mean seats that could be sold, not seats behind mixing boards or with blocked sight lines)
so if scissor sisters plays msg and they do not put the third level or fourth level seats on sale at all, but sell out the floor and first two levels, they can claim they sold out msg, with say 11,000 seats sold. then u2 could play msg the next night, make available all levels, sell all 19,000 or so seats and make the same claim to selling out MSG. Industry standard would consider both of these shows to be soldout?
 
The music industry is a very deceptive business. And yes, if the Scissor Sisters only put a certain amount of tickets at a particular configuration within a venue on sale, and they sold all of those tickets that were put on sale, it would be considered a sell out in that configuration...but not in actual fact. There's plenty of different configurations for concerts:

Half House/Concert Bowl
180 degrees
270 degrees
360 degrees
In The Round

Trust me, don't listen to STING2 if you want to know about the music industry at large. You can ask me. You'll find me to be by far more objective than him. STING2 is a total U2 "fanboy", who claims that U2 is the biggest band in the world in terms of concert attendance and record sales when in actual fact for a band who's still officially together, Pink Floyd is (and I'll be glad to go over and compare the stats of any artist or band in just about any market in the world to prove that Pink Floyd is, for him, you or anyone else who's interested...). The Rolling Stones are 2nd, followed by The Eagles and in fourth place are U2. I've proven to him that the Floyd are the biggest band in the world when considering these two things a couple of months ago but he refuses to admit it for whatever reason. I've read his posts for years before joining interference a couple of months ago, and he's been wrong dozens upon dozens of times (I'm not exaggerating) regarding just about anything you can think of regarding the music industry, unfortunately.

Btw, as you stated, the 2nd ZOO TV (Outside Broadcast) tour Yankee Stadium did not sell out, no matter what STING2 says. Both shows had the exact same 270 degree end stage configuration. Sometimes even so called "official" figures can be wrong and this is a good example...
 
bridonohue said:
you seem to know a lot about this. Could you explain this more to me. (by the way, i am not being sarcastic, i am interested) so the term "sellout" is subjective and capable of being manipulated to report shows as soldout, even if they are not at capacity (and by capacity i mean seats that could be sold, not seats behind mixing boards or with blocked sight lines)
so if scissor sisters plays msg and they do not put the third level or fourth level seats on sale at all, but sell out the floor and first two levels, they can claim they sold out msg, with say 11,000 seats sold. then u2 could play msg the next night, make available all levels, sell all 19,000 or so seats and make the same claim to selling out MSG. Industry standard would consider both of these shows to be soldout?

Thats correct, although the differences are usually smaller than that for arena's for most artist especially when seats behind the stage are not sold.
 
NoControl said:
The music industry is a very deceptive business. And yes, if the Scissor Sisters only put a certain amount of tickets at a particular configuration within a venue on sale, and they sold all of those tickets that were put on sale, it would be considered a sell out in that configuration...but not in actual fact. There's plenty of different configurations for concerts:

Half House/Concert Bowl
180 degrees
270 degrees
360 degrees
In The Round

Trust me, don't listen to STING2 if you want to know about the music industry at large. You can ask me. You'll find me to be by far more objective than him. STING2 is a total U2 "fanboy", who claims that U2 is the biggest band in the world in terms of concert attendance and record sales when in actual fact for a band who's still officially together, Pink Floyd is (and I'll be glad to go over and compare the stats of any artist or band in just about any market in the world to prove that Pink Floyd is, for him, you or anyone else who's interested...). The Rolling Stones are 2nd, followed by The Eagles and in fourth place are U2. I've proven to him that the Floyd are the biggest band in the world when considering these two things a couple of months ago but he refuses to admit it for whatever reason. I've read his posts for years before joining interference a couple of months ago, and he's been wrong dozens upon dozens of times (I'm not exaggerating) regarding just about anything you can think of regarding the music industry, unfortunately.

Btw, as you stated, the 2nd ZOO TV (Outside Broadcast) tour Yankee Stadium did not sell out, no matter what STING2 says. Both shows had the exact same 270 degree end stage configuration. Sometimes even so called "official" figures can be wrong and this is a good example...

When a person becomes a member of this forum, they agree to abide by a faq/rules page. In it, one finds that calling another member "names" or making comments like "wipe the egg off your face" are not consistent with those rules and can result in certain action by moderators that can end one's membership here if they feel it is necessary.

I'm happy to discuss things with you and did a substantial amount of research on the Guns N' Roses tour with amusement business figures to see if I could substantiate your claims about that tour as well as looking back at some of your Pink Floyd claims.

I wanted to share that information, but its rather difficult when someone discusses issues by telling the other to "wipe the egg from your face" or making other disrespectul remarks about other people. People here discuss things and disagree over things all the time without making disrespectiful comments or judgements about other members of the forum.

One can have interesting idea's and facts about who they feel are the biggest artist of the day and what constitutes and "active band". But what one needs to remember to is that there are many other members of this forum with just as much or more access to lots of facts and figures as oneself and they have conclusions about those facts and figures that are different or in fact the opposite of ones own. Calling them names or making rude comments because of that is totally inconsistent with the rules of conduct for this forum and is irrelevant to the discussion itself.

One can disagree with Michael Cohl, veteran promoter of multiple tours by Pink Floyd, U2, the Rolling Stones etc., but one should respect his views when he says that the second most in demand band on the concert scene worldwide is U2. Anyone here that agrees with Michael Cohl or has similar views does not deserve to be called a U2 "fanboy" or told that they need to "wipe the egg off their face" just because their information and claims disagree with their own.

Instead of making personal remarks about another member of the forum when there is a disagreement, one should simply be saying that they understand the others information but have other information and idea's that brings them to an opinion that is different from theirs.

I love these forums and find the discussions interesting and learn new bits of information from virtually eveyone that actively participates. I'm sure many other members of the forum feel the same way, so we should ALL remember to disagree respectfully when disagreements occur and remain in compliance with the faq/rules page for the forum.
 
STING2 said:
When a person becomes a member of this forum, they agree to abide by a faq/rules page. In it, one finds that calling another member "names" or making comments like "wipe the egg off your face" are not consistent with those rules and can result in certain action by moderators that can end one's membership here if they feel it is necessary.


I've never called you any inappropriate names. If you think I have, then you're hilarious. Get over yourself.


Originally posted by STING2 I'm happy to discuss things with you and did a substantial amount of research on the Guns N' Roses tour with amusement business figures to see if I could substantiate your claims about that tour as well as looking back at some of your Pink Floyd claims.

They're not claims. They're facts. Guns N' Roses' 1991-1993 Use Your Illusion tour was the highest attended tour in history. And Pink Floyd are the concert biggest draw in the world compared to any band in the world who are still officially together. They've also sold more records than any other band in the world, who are still officially together. Also, The Dark Side Of The Moon almost outsells U2's entire catalog annually. Pink Floyd's back catalog sells an average of 2 Million copies in the US and 4 Million copies worldwide annually. Oh and btw, both the European and North American legs of the Division Bell tour in 1994 grossed at least $185 Million US combined, since the average ticket price was $34.50 (at least in the US...not sure if it was higher in Euorpe or not?). The PopMart tour in 1997-98 grossed less.


Originally posted by STING2 I wanted to share that information, but its rather difficult when someone discusses issues by telling the other to "wipe the egg from your face" or making other disrespectul remarks about other people.

People here discuss things and disagree over things all the time without making disrespectiful comments or judgements about other members of the forum.

LOL. Disrespectful? Your ego seriously needs deflating...and fast.
Also, you would've never shared that info because you know I'm right. But again, whenever you are wrong (which is in abundance), you never seem to admit it and conjure up some kind of excuse...like you are right now.


Originally posted by STING2 One can have interesting idea's and facts about who they feel are the biggest artist of the day and what constitutes and "active band". But what one needs to remember to is that there are many other members of this forum with just as much or more access to lots of facts and figures as oneself and they have conclusions about those facts and figures that are different or in fact the opposite of ones own. Calling them names or making rude comments because of that is totally inconsistent with the rules of conduct for this forum and is irrelevant to the discussion itself.

Is that your way of admitting you're wrong? Because if it is, then you're a master of semantics. I'll give you that...


Originally posted by STING2 One can disagree with Michael Cohl, veteran promoter of multiple tours by Pink Floyd, U2, the Rolling Stones etc., but one should respect his views when he says that the second most in demand band on the concert scene worldwide is U2.


Michael Cohl was referring to the gross capital earned by The Rolling Stones and U2 from touring. Both of these acts tour regularly. Pink Floyd haven't toured in 10 years. If they had toured regularly since then, they would've been ahead of both The Rolling Stones and U2 in gross capital earnings from touring, so much so, that it wouldn't even be debatable. I know you know that. Every Pink Floyd tour, regardless of their ticket price, has an increase in attendance in every market in the world, apart from Chicago, IL and Cleveland, OH. Most market's increase is 25% to 35%. With some it's 5%. And even with a few others, it's 100%. Whenever The Rolling Stones and U2 tour, their concert attendances recede in just about every market in the world, mainly because of their ticket prices.

Originally posted by STING2 Anyone here that agrees with Michael Cohl or has similar views does not deserve to be called a U2 "fanboy" or told that they need to "wipe the egg off their face" just because their information and claims disagree with their own.

Well, maybe you should read my previous post above.


Originally posted by STING2 Instead of making personal remarks about another member of the forum when there is a disagreement, one should simply be saying that they understand the others information but have other information and idea's that brings them to an opinion that is different from theirs.

I love these forums and find the discussions interesting and learn new bits of information from virtually eveyone that actively participates. I'm sure many other members of the forum feel the same way, so we should ALL remember to disagree respectfully when disagreements occur and remain in compliance with the faq/rules page for the forum.

I love semantics myself...
 
Oh and just to add my 2 cents to this thread topic..

For the most part, U2 aren't popular enough to fill Stadiums in the North America anymore (apart from Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, LA, San Francisco, Montreal, Boston, Miami & Chicago), mainly because of their high ticket prices. If they charged an average of $50-60, that would be different story...

On the Elevation tour, U2 had trouble selling out around 1/3 of the markets they performed in in North America. They utilized a 360 degree end stage configuration for nearly all of the shows...

Shows that didn't sellout:

Kansas City
St. Louis
Tampa
Sacramento

Shows that sold out in a reduced 270 degree configuration:

Lexington (scalpers were selling GA tickets for $10 a pop before this show)
Columbus
Cleveland

Shows that crawled their way to sellouts:

Tacoma
Portland
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
Indianapolis
Charlotte
 
Last edited:
NoControl said:
Oh and just to add my 2 cents to this thread topic..

For the most part, U2 aren't popular enough to fill Stadiums in the North America anymore (apart from Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, LA, San Francisco, Montreal, Boston, Miami & Chicago), mainly because of their high ticket prices. If they charged an average of $50-60, that would be different story...

On the Elevation tour, U2 had trouble selling out around 1/3 of the markets they performed in in North America. They utilized a 360 degree end stage configuration for nearly all of the shows...

Shows that didn't sellout:

Kansas City
St. Louis
Tampa
Sacramento

Shows that sold out in a reduced 270 degree configuration:

Lexington (scalpers were selling GA tickets for $10 a pop before this show)
Columbus
Cleveland

Shows that crawled their way to sellouts:

Tacoma
Portland
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
Indianapolis
Charlotte

It is against the rules of the forum to tell other members that they are "sad", "hilarious", "U2 fanboy", need "wipe the egg off their face" or to make any other comments that are disrespectful as well as making personal false accusations against members.
A comment like this is inconsistent with the rules of conduct of the forum "Your ego seriously needs deflating...and fast".

"But again, whenever you are wrong (which is in abundance), you never seem to admit it and conjure up some kind of excuse...like you are right now."

None of the facts I have listed have been wrong because they are from Amusement Business. My idea's or thoughts on other things or criteria for making statements may be different from yours, but that does not mean they are necessarily wrong.
 
STING2 said:
It is against the rules of the forum to tell other members that they are "sad", "hilarious", "U2 fanboy", need "wipe the egg off their face" or to make any other comments that are disrespectful as well as making personal false accusations against members.
A comment like this is inconsistent with the rules of conduct of the forum "Your ego seriously needs deflating...and fast".

"But again, whenever you are wrong (which is in abundance), you never seem to admit it and conjure up some kind of excuse...like you are right now."

None of the facts I have listed have been wrong because they are from Amusement Business. My idea's or thoughts on other things or criteria for making statements may be different from yours, but that does not mean they are necessarily wrong.

I've already shown you why you are wrong, several times. Oh and would you can the self-righteous crap, ok?
 
STING2 said:
Adjusted for inflation, the POPMART ticket price of 52.50 in 1997 today is 61 dollars.


The average ticket price for the North American legs of the PopMart tour was $48.00, not $52.50. And U2 grossed around $79 Million and sold 1.65 Million tickets combined on legs 1 and 3 of the tour.

Originally posted by STING2 U2 soldout several stadiums in the United Sates at that ticket price. As long as they charge around 60 dollars per ticket, they could do wonderful business.

U2 only sold out 1/3 of the shows on the North American legs of the PopMart tour.
 
STING2 said:
U2 did just fine in attracting a massive crowd for their POPMART tour stop in 1997 for Miami. U2 at best is good for 2 shows in Philly at a 50,000 seat stadium like the one the Eagles play in. That is really great business and about where they were on ZOO TV in terms of demand. They could probably do 6 shows at Giant Stadium if demand is going to be at the same level it was for ZOO TV.

I believe U2 would only be able to play to 50-65,000 people, or the equivalent of one Stadium show in Philly at Stadium prices of an average of $50-$65, since they played to around 45,000 people (not including most of the return engagement audience) in Philly on the Elevation tour at an average of around $77.
 
STING2 said:
If U2 have the same demand on this tour as they did on ZOO TV, they could sellout 6 shows at GIANTS STADIUM. They could probably do Fifteen shows at the Meadowlands Arena if they wanted to.

I don't see how, especially at today's prices, as they didn't sellout the 4th Stadium show in the NYC area on the Outside Broadcast leg of the ZOO TV tour.
 
Michael Cohl made that statement in 1997 during the POPMART tour when the bands performance was being unfairly criticized. Michael Cohl pointed out that the only band that could do better business worldwide than U2 was the Rolling Stones.

Unless I see confirmed attendance figures for every Guns N' Roses date for their last tour that shows them having an attendence level of 7 million, then I will consider that figure to be an overestimate. I looked up and found the exact figures from amusement business for many of the North American dates and discovered that several shows in Toronto were actually arena size shows instead of Stadium size shows and several other shows had attempted to play to a full house but fell 1,000 or 2,000 seats short of the level required for a complete sellout! But the shows were close enough to a full sellout that obviously no backdrop was used at that particular show.

In addition, I have never consider any touring act that stays on the road for an unusually long time to alone be evidence of superior demand to another band. If Band A is more popular, but only tours for 100 shows because of other reasons having nothing to do with the business, then it would be rather easy for Band B with only 80% of the popularity as Band A to a do a tour over 200 dates and end up with a total attendance that is in excess of the more popular band.

The Amusement Business information I found for the Guns N' Roses tour supported what I had suspected origionally before seeing all the information.

But the Guns N' Roses/Metallica Stadium tour in 1992 turned out to be a more heavily attended tour than you or I estimated. But once again, it was a tour with two popular headlining acts with a platinum level opening act all for the price of one band. Despite its success, the tour did not show that either band could do a stadium tour by itself and the attendence level from the tour should not be used to inflate either Gun N' Roses or Metallica's respective totals for their solo tours.




On to Pink Floyd. I don't consider Pink Floyd to be a band anymore. I understand you think they are. But to me, they are no more an active band than THE POLICE or the old GUNS N' ROSES. All three groups technically could tour again despite what ever has happened in the past.

In any event, I have never seen an Amusement Business figure showing that Pink Floyd Grossed 185 million dollars on the Division Bell tour. Nor have I seen official attendence figures from Amusement Business for the European portion of that tour. In addition, the band never played outside of Europe and North America on this tour and has never played in South America or South Africa, so it is difficult to accurately state with all this missing information that the band is the top drawing act in the world. Michael Cohl essentially says they are not and I agree. Their US tour in 1994 had perhaps the most impressive attendance figures for any North American tour in history, but it would be wrong to take those figures and extrapolate them all over the world.

In addition, the reason I feel that the band had stronger attendence figures on the 1994 Division Bell North American tour was because of the lower ticket price for upper level seats in the stadiums. This price was often as little as $22.50 which is less than the average ticket price for the tour in 1987 once adjusted for inflation. The 1987 price of 20 dollars adjusted for inflation is $26.34 in 1994. The band charged $60 and $75 dollar tickets for seats they new would be easy to sell to die hard fans. This was a smart pricing system and in my view is the reason for the unusually strong attendance for the 1994 North American tour.

Based on album sales of the new album, the band was not any more popular in 1994 than they were in 1987 as the Division Bell album did not sell as fast or as much as Momentary. What is fact, is that hard to sell seats at the back of the stadium were cheaper in 1994, than they were in 1987, once the figures are adjusted for inflation.

What Pink Floyd's catalog sales in 2003 or 2005 is irrelevant to my criteria for determining the most popular band at the current time. The criteria that most in the industry use is the album sales of the latest album and the concert sales of the latest tour. How many albums Pink Floyd sold in 1973, 1980 or 1988, is irrelevant to how popular the band truely is in 2005. I understand you don't agree with that criteria, but that is what I and most other people use in determining popularity. Your only as hot as your latest product.

As far as sales go for the catalogs, I realize Dark Side of the Moon is a big seller, but unless you have RIAA, IFPI, or Soundscan system type figures to substantiate your claims that Dark Side Of the Moon sells more worldwide every year than U2's entire catalog, then I would say that is an overestimate. I don't use record company information when I'm looking for confirmed figures, but figures from firms like RIAA, IFPI that do an official audit or something like Soundscan which tracks actual sales every week. Once again, I'm thinking in terms of global sales, not just the USA.

If you go to www.bpi.co.uk you will come to the British version of RIAA which certifies sales for the UK. There you will notice that as of 1993, Joshua Tree had roughly the same sales level in the United Kingdom as Dark Side Of The Moon. By June 1992, Joshua Tree had sold 1,800,000 copies in the UK for a 6 times platinum sales level and by May 1993, Dark Side Of the Moon had reached the 7 times platinum mark for 2,100,000 copies in sales in the UK. Of course, certifications for multi-Platinum albums in the UK had just really kicked in for older titles around that time, but it appears that full certifications for Dark Side were complete by May 1993, as there has been no certifications sense then. The Dark Side album may be re-certified in the future for increased sales levels in the UK, but at this time it has not been, nor has the Joshua Tree.

So from a catalog standpoint in the United Kingdom, the bands appear to be roughly equal. I'd also add that despite the fact that Pink Floyd has more albums, U2's total weeks on the UK album chart are more than Pink Floyds overall total according to the Guinness Book of the UK album charts which compiles that information.

I've found that the sales pattern in the UK to be more representive of the pattern of sales in other foreign countries outside the United States.

As far as Pink Floyd's tour attendance increasing over the years, the only way you could make that claim is through the difference in North American tour numbers from just two tours of North America. It can be very inaccurate to take such a small piece of information an extrapolate over the whole world for the next ten years. I don't have any confirmed amusement business figures for Pink Floyds tour dates in Europe on either tour, so any estimate about increases in attendance there over the last tour are unconfirmed for the individual dates. We do know that Pink Floyd played less shows outside the United States on the Division Bell tour and only Arena shows in England and a show in Ireland that was cancelled do to low ticket sales.(the information about the Irish show came from a Pink Floyd tour history book). In addition, the increase in attendence at the shows on Division Bell tour I feel are from the smart pricing of the tickets, with hard to sell tickets in the back half of the stadium priced below market value and the easy to sell tickets dramatically increased in price.

In North America on the 1987 tour, its easy to get a nearly exact comparison of U2 and Pink Floyd in the individual markets. Both bands would play many of these markets within days of each other. In particular, more people went to see U2 on September 25, 1987 at JFK stadium(Philadelphia) than went to see Pink Floyd on September 19, 1987 at JFK stadium(Philadelphia). A little over 86,000 people went to see U2 on September 25, while only a little under 81,000 people went to see Pink Floyd 6 days earlier. This is the perfect type of comparison between any two groups in determining which one has the stronger drawing power in that particular market. U2 actually played the Spectrum Arena 13 days earlier, but I'll leave that out of the equation.

Now its true that Pink Floyd would return to many of these markets including Philadelphia 8 months later, but to add those figures to ones 8 months earlier and then compare them to the single U2 dates is not accurate. If U2 had decided to hit these markets again in April and May of 1988, based on the results of September and October of 1987, everything indicates that their figures would match or exceed those for Pink Floyd. But the band started recording a new album in January 1988 as well as getting a movie ready for release in October 1988. This is why the only accurate way to compare artist, is to compare individual sales levels in comparable markets instead of simply going with a tour ending lump sum total which is often more reflective of a particular artist choice to tour more or anothers choice to return to the studio, family, other activites etc.


There are lots of facts and figures to look at but in determining who is the most popular band or artist currently will depend on the criteria one uses. There is no official criteria used, but the one that is more popular in the media and industry is using the latest original album of new material's sales level + the level of demand to see the artist on the road from the latest tour.

Based on that criteria, U2 has been the most popular band and artist since 1987. I realize you probably disagree with that criteria or even that assertion, but based on what I have seen and looked at, including your information and others, that is what I think, even during lean times for the band on POPMART and POP.

I consider Pink Floyd to have stopped in December of 1994, but would agree that U2's lower sales levels on POP would put them behind Pink Floyd in the late 1990s if one consider Pink Floyd to still be an active band.

But since ATYCLB was released in 2000 the sales for U2's latest album figure doubled and demand to see the band on tour increased, despite the scaling down of the tour to Arena's to insure industry sellouts at every show. So from that point on, even if one consider Pink Floyd to still be active, U2 would be ahead of them by virtue of the fact that the latest album had sold around twice as many copies as Pink Floyds latest and the demand to see the band in concert, while not as high as perhaps Floyds level in 1994, was still more than half that level if that band had chosen to play a stadium tour.

Now U2 has released the fastest selling album of their entire career with "HTDAAB". As ROLLING STONE magazine currently says, "if anyone had any doubt that U2 are the biggest band in the world, there is none now". I realize what "general media" says is to be taken with a grain of salt, but I have not seen any publication in over a decade, if ever, make the claim that Pink Floyd at the CURRENT time was the most popular band in the world. If you know of one recently I'd like to read it.

So based on what I have seen and read, the above is what I think on the following questions or issues. I realize your criteria for assessing things is different as well as your conclusions. But having looked at all that, this is what I conclude. There are many other people in the forum that have different conclusions and different criteria as well. Many will and have agreed with me on somethings others have not. But the conclusions I have are honest ones supported by accurate information.
 
NoControl said:


I've already shown you why you are wrong, several times. Oh and would you can the self-righteous crap, ok?

There is a faq/rules page. If you read it, you will find that one is not to be calling others in the forums names or telling them to "wipe the egg off their face". I really don't understand why you would refer to another person with such names or tell someone to "wipe the egg of their face", but that is not consistent with the faq/rules page.

If you disagree with this then you or I can contact a moderator and they can judge for themselves if the posts are out of line or not. The Faq/Rules page says one is not to engage in anything that could be construed as a personal attack whether it be name calling or something else.
 
NoControl said:
Oh and just to add my 2 cents to this thread topic..

For the most part, U2 aren't popular enough to fill Stadiums in the North America anymore (apart from Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, LA, San Francisco, Montreal, Boston, Miami & Chicago), mainly because of their high ticket prices. If they charged an average of $50-60, that would be different story...

On the Elevation tour, U2 had trouble selling out around 1/3 of the markets they performed in in North America. They utilized a 360 degree end stage configuration for nearly all of the shows...

Shows that didn't sellout:

Kansas City
St. Louis
Tampa
Sacramento

Shows that sold out in a reduced 270 degree configuration:

Lexington (scalpers were selling GA tickets for $10 a pop before this show)
Columbus
Cleveland

Shows that crawled their way to sellouts:

Tacoma
Portland
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
Indianapolis
Charlotte

The band charges ticket prices based on the size of the venue they would be playing. When a band can play stadiums at $50 dollar or $60 price level, then the band can charge even more for tickets when they play a venue that is 1/2 or 1/3 the size of the stadium. A decrease in supply leads to an increase in demand. Increased demand leads to an increase in price. Economics 101.

There was was one venue on the POPMART tour that was actually a small venue. It was in Perth Australia. Because of the smaller number of tickets available for sell, the band were able to increase the price of tickets to average of $113 dollars over the normal $50 ticket level.

The band would never play stadiums charging an average of nearly 80 dollars or more a ticket in my opinion. A 60 dollar level which is around what was charged on POPMART once that figure is adjusted for inflation is what would be charged.

The band had strong attendance(maybe not "full sellouts") in these markets on the POPMART tour in North America.

New York City
Boston
Washington DC
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Chicago
Miami
Toronto
Montreal
Edmunton
Winnipeg

Many of the shows on Elevation that had trouble selling out were shows in smaller markets with the "behind the stage seating". Lower level tickets behind the stage were 85 dollars a pop! Still the band eventually sold these difficult to sale seats at high prices. The difficulty of selling behind the stage seating would not be a problem with a Stadium shows since no seats are behind the stage.

Just from Elevation, I estimate the band could sellout stadiums in the strong Markets from POPMART as well as have greater attendance in other markets than was seen on POPMART. The band sold 3 times as many albums of ATYCLB in the United States as they sold with POP and was clearly more popular in North America overall than they had been for POPMART.
 
NoControl said:


The average ticket price for the North American legs of the PopMart tour was $48.00, not $52.50. And U2 grossed around $79 Million and sold 1.65 Million tickets combined on legs 1 and 3 of the tour.



U2 only sold out 1/3 of the shows on the North American legs of the PopMart tour.

I did not say 52.50 was the average ticket price, I said the POPMART price of 52.50 would be 61 dollars today. The vast majority of tickets sold on the tour in the United States were 52.50 including many hard to sell seats in the back corners of stadiums.
 
NoControl said:


I believe U2 would only be able to play to 50-65,000 people, or the equivalent of one Stadium show in Philly at Stadium prices of an average of $50-$65, since they played to around 45,000 people (not including most of the return engagement audience) in Philly on the Elevation tour at an average of around $77.

That might be accurate if you assume that U2 had exausted the market in Philadelphia on the Elevation tour. Each show in Philadelphia soldout as fast as tickets could be sold which means that more shows could have been played if U2 had decided to. At what point the saturation level would have been reached is not known, but the three shows played in Philadelphia did not meet the full demand for that market. The average scalper price for a GA ticket to the last Philadelphia show was $250 dollars.

How the band would do in a stadium in Philadelphia this coming year would depend on several factors. Based on the demand for this album, I think the band could repeat their stadium attendence figures for Philadelphia from the ZOO TV tour if they were to charge a 60 dollar price. The band played to a total of 88,000 people at two Veterans Stadium shows back in September of 1992 on the ZOO TV tour.

That figure I think would be slightly higher if the band only played on Stadium show in Washington DC or just a couple of arena shows there and a smaller number of Stadium shows in New York City. Over saturation in those markets can have a small impact on attendance in Philadelphia.



I think if the band plays multiple arena dates in any potential stadium market, at market prices, it may dappen chances to play a stadium in that market on the fall leg.

Market prices for an arena show this time out will probably be $50, $95, and $145.

If the rumored tour dates prove to be true for the first leg, then there probably will be few if any stadiums played on the fall leg.
 
NoControl said:


I don't see how, especially at today's prices, as they didn't sellout the 4th Stadium show in the NYC area on the Outside Broadcast leg of the ZOO TV tour.

Well, the prices would be closer to POPMART prices and the exact attendance for the 4th stadium show is not completely known. Also, when I say sellout, I'm talking in terms of an "industry sellout". U2 played to 109,000 people at two Giants Stadium shows and 104,000 people at the two Yankee stadium shows. I could see them selling out two more shows in the area at roughly 45,000 to 50,000 for each show.

The band were planning to eventually play 5 shows at Giants Stadium on the POPMART tour before the album was released and tickets went on sale. That was of course based on their performance on the ZOO TV tour.
 
STING2 said:
Michael Cohl made that statement in 1997 during the POPMART tour when the bands performance was being unfairly criticized. Michael Cohl pointed out that the only band that could do better business worldwide than U2 was the Rolling Stones.


Right. Because Pink Floyd hadn't toured since then and haven't since.


Originally posted by STING2 Unless I see confirmed attendance figures for every Guns N' Roses date for their last tour that shows them having an attendence level of 7 million, then I will consider that figure to be an overestimate. I looked up and found the exact figures from amusement business for many of the North American dates and discovered that several shows in Toronto were actually arena size shows instead of Stadium size shows and several other shows had attempted to play to a full house but fell 1,000 or 2,000 seats short of the level required for a complete sellout! But the shows were close enough to a full sellout that obviously no backdrop was used at that particular show.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/misc/illusiontour.htm


Originally posted by STING2 In addition, I have never consider any touring act that stays on the road for an unusually long time to alone be evidence of superior demand to another band. If Band A is more popular, but only tours for 100 shows because of other reasons having nothing to do with the business, then it would be rather easy for Band B with only 80% of the popularity as Band A to a do a tour over 200 dates and end up with a total attendance that is in excess of the more popular band.

I'm not saying Gun N' Roses are more popular overall as the Stones, U2 or Floyd. But what I am saying, is that the Use Your Illusion tour is the highest attended tour in history whether you like it or not.


Originally posted by STING2 The Amusement Business information I found for the Guns N' Roses tour supported what I had suspected origionally before seeing all the information.

What just for the Toronto shows? If not, let's see the stats.


Originally posted by STING2 But the Guns N' Roses/Metallica Stadium tour in 1992 turned out to be a more heavily attended tour than you or I estimated. But once again, it was a tour with two popular headlining acts with a platinum level opening act all for the price of one band. Despite its success, the tour did not show that either band could do a stadium tour by itself and the attendence level from the tour should not be used to inflate either Gun N' Roses or Metallica's respective totals for their solo tours.

Yes it should. And I see no reason why it shouldn't. If you'd like to minus 400,000 tickets off of the 7 million total, that's fine by me.


Originally posted by STING2 On to Pink Floyd. I don't consider Pink Floyd to be a band anymore.

Well, they are. Deal with it. And even if they aren't. It doesn't mean they aren't a larger draw than The Stones or U2.

Originally posted by STING2 I understand you think they are. But to me, they are no more an active band than THE POLICE or the old GUNS N' ROSES.

Nick Mason was quoted as saying in the next little while (probably a year or two), there will be another tour. Possibly to back up an anthology release of some sort.


Originally posted by STING2 In any event, I have never seen an Amusement Business figure showing that Pink Floyd Grossed 185 million dollars on the Division Bell tour. Nor have I seen official attendence figures from Amusement Business for the European portion of that tour.

Well, the average price for the DB tour was $34.50 (if not more in Europe). So multiple 5.4 Million tickets sold times that figure and that's at least what you'll get. Geez, do I have to spell it out for you.

Originally posted by STING2 In addition, the band never played outside of Europe and North America on this tour and has never played in South America or South Africa, so it is difficult to accurately state with all this missing information that the band is the top drawing act in the world.

They've played Australia in 1988 and broke attendance records. And the reason why they only played in Europe and North America in '94 was that Gilmour doesn't like to tour that much anymore. That's also the main reason why Floyd haven't toured in ten years. I've already gone over this. Floyd's back catalog sells more than any other band apart from the Beatles annually in the US and worldwide.

As far as South America is concerned: Roger Waters only plays to 1/5 - 1/10 of the people Floyd has played to comparatively in each market worldwide. Waters toured there in 2002 and played Stadiums (which he absolutely hates to do):

Santiago: 65,000
Sao Paulo: 45,000
Buenos Aires: 35,000
Rio de Janeiro: 30,000
Porto Algre: 30,000
Caracas: 15,000


So how many people do you think Floyd can draw in these markets if they performed there considering that RW only does 1/5 - 1/10 of what they do? That's right. In fact, the only market where the Stones could out draw Floyd there, would potentially be Buenos Aires. Also:

http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/interview/argent.html


Originally posted by STING2 Michael Cohl essentially says they are not and I agree. Their US tour in 1994 had perhaps the most impressive attendance figures for any North American tour in history, but it would be wrong to take those figures and extrapolate them all over the world.

I've gone over this.


Originally posted by STING2 In addition, the reason I feel that the band had stronger attendence figures on the 1994 Division Bell North American tour was because of the lower ticket price for upper level seats in the stadiums. This price was often as little as $22.50 which is less than the average ticket price for the tour in 1987 once adjusted for inflation.

You can't look at it like that. The average price for the tour was $34.50. And I've already gone over the fact that the Stones attendances recede when their prices increase, while every tour Floyd takes on, attendances increase, regardless of their ticket price. How many times do I have to tell you that?? That proves that even if the Floyd toured now with prices 70-75% higher on average than they were on the DB tour or the AMOL tour (which was the basic increase for each of those tours btw), which would be $60, it wouldn't affect their attendances from last tour in the least. In fact you'd have to add their precentage growth rate per market, which is mainly between 25-35% for most markets. Some markets are 5%, and even other markets are even 100% on top of that.

A new Pink Floyd tour (depending on how many shows they would do) would break every record imaginable. And I'm not exaggerating either, as I've shown you.


Originally posted by STING2 Based on album sales of the new album, the band was not any more popular in 1994 than they were in 1987 as the Division Bell album did not sell as fast or as much as Momentary.

That's totally incorrect. AMLOR only sold more than the DB in the US, but nowhere else to my knowledge. And Pink Floyd's back catalog sells 4 Million worldwide annually (2 Million in the US). That has to factor into this as well.


Originally posted by STING2 The criteria that most in the industry use is the album sales of the latest album and the concert sales of the latest tour.

I agree with the criteria with the latest tour but not for the latest album. I mean, that's like saying Milli Vanilli or Vanilla Ice were the biggest acts in the world in 1990-91 because they sold the most that year. And that's totally ridiculous! LOL You have to look at the overall picture here!

Originally posted by STING2 How many albums Pink Floyd sold in 1973, 1980 or 1988, is irrelevant to how popular the band truely is in 2005. I understand you don't agree with that criteria, but that is what I and most other people use in determining popularity. Your only as hot as your latest product.

Again, ridiculous! You have to be joking?!


Originally posted by STING2 As far as sales go for the catalogs, I realize Dark Side of the Moon is a big seller, but unless you have RIAA, IFPI, or Soundscan system type figures to substantiate your claims that Dark Side Of the Moon sells more worldwide every year than U2's entire catalog, then I would say that is an overestimate.

I didn't say that. I said it almost sells more then U2's back catalog annually. If you disagree, then prove me wrong. Pink Floyd officially sold 140 million albums by early 1994. This is fact. And by 1999 they had sold 175 million. Today they've sold close to 200 million records worldwide. Do the math. It's a well know fact that it sells that much evey year. You're obviously back peddling. Because someone like yourself should know this. Google the amount and see for yourself.


Originally posted by STING2 If you go to www.bpi.co.uk you will come to the British version of RIAA which certifies sales for the UK. There you will notice that as of 1993, Joshua Tree had roughly the same sales level in the United Kingdom as Dark Side Of The Moon. By June 1992, Joshua Tree had sold 1,800,000 copies in the UK for a 6 times platinum sales level and by May 1993, Dark Side Of the Moon had reached the 7 times platinum mark for 2,100,000 copies in sales in the UK. Of course, certifications for multi-Platinum albums in the UK had just really kicked in for older titles around that time, but it appears that full certifications for Dark Side were complete by May 1993, as there has been no certifications sense then. The Dark Side album may be re-certified in the future for increased sales levels in the UK, but at this time it has not been, nor has the Joshua Tree.

That doesn't mean it hasn't sold more since then. For example, Rush's Roll The Bones album Soundscaned 1 Million by early 1993 but was certified Platinum until 2001!

Originally posted by STING2 So from a catalog standpoint in the United Kingdom, the bands appear to be roughly equal. I'd also add that despite the fact that Pink Floyd has more albums, U2's total weeks on the UK album chart are more than Pink Floyds overall total according to the Guinness Book of the UK album charts which compiles that information.

That's just the UK. Not the world at large.


Originally posted by STING2 As far as Pink Floyd's tour attendance increasing over the years, the only way you could make that claim is through the difference in North American tour numbers from just two tours of North America. It can be very inaccurate to take such a small piece of information an extrapolate over the whole world for the next ten years.

No, I'm not taking their growth percentage rate per market from just their past two tours. It dates back to the beginning of their career (or near) and I'm including all markets they've played in at least twice which are Europe, Australia, Japan, as well as Waters' comparative drawing markets throughout the world including South America.


Originally posted by STING2 I don't have any confirmed amusement business figures for Pink Floyds tour dates in Europe on either tour, so any estimate about increases in attendance there over the last tour are unconfirmed for the individual dates.

Give me a break. I can give you examples:


Rotterdam - Feyenoord Stadion (2 shows)...1988
Rotterdam - Feyenoord Stadion (3 shows)...1994
Growth rate: 50%

London - Wembley Stadium (2 shows)...1988
London - Earl's Court (217,000 tickets sold - 14 shows...the equivalent of 3 shows at Wembley Stadium)...1994
Growth rate: 50% (it might be slightly less due to 5-10% returning to multiple shows)

Want more? Dozens more....



Originally posted by STING2 ..and only Arena shows in England and a show in Ireland that was cancelled do to low ticket sales.(the information about the Irish show came from a Pink Floyd tour history book).

Incorrect. 14 Arena shows just in London. And I don't believe the claim of a cancelled show on the DB tour in Dublin.


Originally posted by STING2 ..In addition, the increase in attendence at the shows on Division Bell tour I feel are from the smart pricing of the tickets, with hard to sell tickets in the back half of the stadium priced below market value and the easy to sell tickets dramatically increased in price.

Give me a break. It's because Floyd's popularity is increasing every year. And that's extremely obvious with their immense record sales, etc...

Originally posted by STING2 .. In North America on the 1987 tour, its easy to get a nearly exact comparison of U2 and Pink Floyd in the individual markets. Both bands would play many of these markets within days of each other. In particular, more people went to see U2 on September 25, 1987 at JFK stadium(Philadelphia) than went to see Pink Floyd on September 19, 1987 at JFK stadium(Philadelphia). A little over 86,000 people went to see U2 on September 25, while only a little under 81,000 people went to see Pink Floyd 6 days earlier. This is the perfect type of comparison between any two groups in determining which one has the stronger drawing power in that particular market. U2 actually played the Spectrum Arena 13 days earlier, but I'll leave that out of the equation.

Pink Floyd sold out 3 Stadium shows in Philly on the AMLOR tour in 1987-88 and sold 180,000 tickets. When have U2 or the Stones sold that many tickets in Philly on one tour where they were headlining acts? I've already gone over this with you...

Originally posted by STING2 .... Now its true that Pink Floyd would return to many of these markets including Philadelphia 8 months later, but to add those figures to ones 8 months earlier and then compare them to the single U2 dates is not accurate.

Yes it is. Minus the return engagement to Philly 8 months later, Floyd still played to at least 120,000 people. More than the Stones or U2 have as headlining acts.

Originally posted by STING2 .... If U2 had decided to hit these markets again in April and May of 1988, based on the results of September and October of 1987, everything indicates that their figures would match or exceed those for Pink Floyd.

Not true. ZOO TV was U2's highest attended tour. And U2 topped out at 105,000 tickets sold in Philly that year. Minus return engagement, they played to 90,000 people.


Originally posted by STING2 .... There are lots of facts and figures to look at but in determining who is the most popular band or artist currently will depend on the criteria one uses. There is no official criteria used, but the one that is more popular in the media and industry is using the latest original album of new material's sales level + the level of demand to see the artist on the road from the latest tour.

Not necessarily true.

Oh and btw, The Division Bell Soundscaned 462,000 copies in it's debut week in the US. It was number #1 for four weeks there. In my home country, it was #1 for six weeks straight! To date it's sold between 7-8 Million copies worldwide.

Originally posted by STING2 .... Based on that criteria, U2 has been the most popular band and artist since 1987.

Pink Floyd, as I've proven, has been the biggest band in the world since the mid '90s.


Originally posted by STING2 .... I realize you probably disagree with that criteria or even that assertion, but based on what I have seen and looked at, including your information and others, that is what I think, even during lean times for the band on POPMART and POP.

I have no clue how you've come to that conclusion.


Originally posted by STING2 .... But since ATYCLB was released in 2000 the sales for U2's latest album figure doubled and demand to see the band on tour increased, despite the scaling down of the tour to Arena's to insure industry sellouts at every show.

If that's true then why did U2 only equal their PopMart attendance in LA and NY (minus return engagement) and nowhere else?


Originally posted by STING2 .... So from that point on, even if one consider Pink Floyd to still be active, U2 would be ahead of them by virtue of the fact that the latest album had sold around twice as many copies as Pink Floyds latest and the demand to see the band in concert, while not as high as perhaps Floyds level in 1994, was still more than half that level if that band had chosen to play a stadium tour.

AYCLB has sold 10.8 Million copies to date according to Billboard, whom I think is an accurate source. DB sold at least 7 Million copies worldwide, if not 8 Million. I fail to see your math estimations. And according to your criteria, that would be impossible since we would have to see a new Floyd album in order to live that estimation out.


Originally posted by STING2 .... Now U2 has released the fastest selling album of their entire career with "HTDAAB". As ROLLING STONE magazine currently says, "if anyone had any doubt that U2 are the biggest band in the world, there is none now".

Publicizing U2 with a magazine like this is pure "hype" and nothing else. And to be honest, I can't stand Rolling Stone magazine for many reasons. They're not relevant to me in the least.

Originally posted by STING2 .... I realize what "general media" says is to be taken with a grain of salt, but I have not seen any publication in over a decade, if ever, make the claim that Pink Floyd at the CURRENT time was the most popular band in the world. If you know of one recently I'd like to read it.

Q magazine recently stated that Pink Floyd were ahead of everyone else (The Beatles even) at the top spot for "Biggest band in the world", interestingly enough.


Originally posted by STING2 .... So based on what I have seen and read, the above is what I think on the following questions or issues. I realize your criteria for assessing things is different as well as your conclusions. But having looked at all that, this is what I conclude. There are many other people in the forum that have different conclusions and different criteria as well. Many will and have agreed with me on somethings others have not. But the conclusions I have are honest ones supported by accurate information.

Accurate information....please.
 
STING2 said:


They would hurt sales though for a fall stadium show or shows. It would be better for them to play one arena show and then come back in the fall and potentially play TWO stadium shows in Philly.

Just curious, STING2: why do you think playing several arenas would hurt their chances for playing stadiums?

Wouldn't that be the best advertising to keep the demand untill Fall?
I mean, most - if not all - people that saw them in the Spring would probably go to the stadiums to see them again, plus add those who go because of "word of mouth" advertising.

I was surprised they didn't play stadiums on the last tour where they sold out 3 or more nights on the first leg, like New york or Boston or Chicago...
 
STING2 said:


They do listen to the lyrics but unlike some other fans, do not make wild extrapolations taking songs with one meaning and applying them to a hundred different politically left idea's.

The band are not pacifist and have supported military action in the past as well as much of, but not all of, Bush's war on terror. They are not the extreme politically left band that many liberal fans dream that they are. In fact, many of their political thoughts on a variety of issues are unknown.

um, extrapolating is evidently what you have done to my very short and simple comment. But, hey if you want to ignore the obvious, thats ok. U2 have always acknowledged fans have different reasons to follow them - maybe its the progressive politics, maybe they like the sound of the drums.
 
STING2 said:
Well, the prices would be closer to POPMART prices and the exact attendance for the 4th stadium show is not completely known. Also, when I say sellout, I'm talking in terms of an "industry sellout". U2 played to 109,000 people at two Giants Stadium shows and 104,000 people at the two Yankee stadium shows. I could see them selling out two more shows in the area at roughly 45,000 to 50,000 for each show.



U2 didn't sellout the 4th NYC area Stadium show on the ZOO TV tour. Both Yankee Stadium shows had the exact same 270 degree end stage configuration. bridonohue, who an eye witness who attended both Yankee Stadium shows said there were thousands of seats unsold for the second show there (I believe he estimated 5-10,000). Which anyone can see if they view the Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses video. Since the maximum 270 end stage configuration is 52,000 at Yankee, that means that the second show had around 45,000 people there. Now with the other NYC area shows U2 performed on the ZOO TV tour, they maxed out at 225,000 in the NYC area (minus return engagements and 5-10% coming back to multiple shows). They'll never draw that many people there again. Well, if tickets are an average of $40 they would. But that's not going to happen in today's music industry climate.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:
The band charges ticket prices based on the size of the venue they would be playing. When a band can play stadiums at $50 dollar or $60 price level, then the band can charge even more for tickets when they play a venue that is 1/2 or 1/3 the size of the stadium. A decrease in supply leads to an increase in demand. Increased demand leads to an increase in price. Economics 101.

There was was one venue on the POPMART tour that was actually a small venue. It was in Perth Australia. Because of the smaller number of tickets available for sell, the band were able to increase the price of tickets to average of $113 dollars over the normal $50 ticket level.

The band would never play stadiums charging an average of nearly 80 dollars or more a ticket in my opinion. A 60 dollar level which is around what was charged on POPMART once that figure is adjusted for inflation is what would be charged.

The band had strong attendance(maybe not "full sellouts") in these markets on the POPMART tour in North America.

New York City
Boston
Washington DC
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Chicago
Miami
Toronto
Montreal
Edmunton
Winnipeg

Many of the shows on Elevation that had trouble selling out were shows in smaller markets with the "behind the stage seating". Lower level tickets behind the stage were 85 dollars a pop! Still the band eventually sold these difficult to sale seats at high prices. The difficulty of selling behind the stage seating would not be a problem with a Stadium shows since no seats are behind the stage.

Just from Elevation, I estimate the band could sellout stadiums in the strong Markets from POPMART as well as have greater attendance in other markets than was seen on POPMART. The band sold 3 times as many albums of ATYCLB in the United States as they sold with POP and was clearly more popular in North America overall than they had been for POPMART.

I know virtually everything you said above and have gone of this before. What's your point?

I'm saying is that they'd only be able to sell out Stadiums in 12 North American markets tops if their prices were an average of $50-65 (less than 10 markets if their prices were higher). And by today's standards, if they did a Stadium tour in the US, there's no way that those prices ($50-65) would be any lower.
 
NoControl said:


I know virtually everything you said above and have gone of this before. What's your point?

I'm saying is that they'd only be able to sell out Stadiums in 12 North American markets tops if their prices were an average of $50-65 (less than 10 markets if their prices were higher). And by today's standards, if they did a Stadium tour in the US, there's no way that those prices ($50-65) would be any lower.

Sorry to but in, but I actually agree with STING2 on your last point here. Springsteen charged $75 per ticket for his last stadium tour and U2,right now, could charge more. I could see $85 prices for US dates. They would stick to the major markets and do multiple dates. Yes, its a risk, which why they know they can do an arena tour and still make the big bucks.
 
Johnovox said:


Sorry to but in, but I actually agree with STING2 on your last point here. Springsteen charged $75 per ticket for his last stadium tour and U2,right now, could charge more. I could see $85 prices for US dates. They would stick to the major markets and do multiple dates. Yes, its a risk, which why they know they can do an arena tour and still make the big bucks.

$85 for Stadium shows? I don't see how that's possible, since Springsteen is a larger draw than U2 is a several markets worldwide.
 
Last edited:
u2 will open for metallica if they want stadium shows in america

MET%20Detroit%20Dueling%20Stages.jpg
 
u2 will open for metallica if they want stadium shows in america

I hope that was a joke. U2 is far more popular than Metallica, even in the US.

I have no doubt that a US stadium tour with this album would be successful. That said, I think arenas in the US (with corresponding higher ticket prices under clear channel) and stadiums in Europe is probably the best way to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom