The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

[U2Man]

Like I said, the Popmart prices were high because of the elaborate stage construction and all the staff it took to run the show. Elevation was a simpler stage construction. The band and management didn't take Elevation to Australia because it wasn't going to make them any money. They said this at the time. None of this has anything to do with the perceived quality of the albums.

Go back and do some homework. All of this information is available for you to read. Australians were complaining about the tickets prices publically; the country was having economic difficulties at that time.

Homework?

Australia had economic difficulties at the time, yes - but it isn't exactly a poor country. My guess is that enough people would have been able to buy tickets for U2's Elevation tour if the ticket prices were anywhere near the prices in Europe and the US. Still, the costs of taking the show to these parts of the world were too high to make it profitable, though. Agree.

And of course the demand for tickets has got to do with the perceived quality of the album that is being promoted. It DOES help to have number 1 hit singles when you put millions of tickets for sale.

 

[nickypiemcg]

Re: Re: Re: The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

because he is a fan who likes to stick up for his band? is that not ok? just like fans like to critise the band, its ok for them, but when someone trys to defend they get a sea of people telling them they shouldnt

Well I just think people are being silly when the get all worked up about what another band says about a band they like.

 

[STING2]

Like I said, the Popmart prices were high because of the elaborate stage construction and all the staff it took to run the show. Elevation was a simpler stage construction. The band and management didn't take Elevation to Australia because it wasn't going to make them any money. They said this at the time. None of this has anything to do with the perceived quality of the albums.

Go back and do some homework. All of this information is available for you to read. Australians were complaining about the tickets prices publically; the country was having economic difficulties at that time.

While POPMART Australia did not do well in terms of attendance for a Stadium tour there, that was in 1997. By 2002, the circumstances were a lot different with ATYCLB going 5 times platinum in Australia. If the band had wanted to, they could have gone to Australia and had a great Arena and maybe even a Stadium tour. Hell, the band went there in 1984 prior to the release of The Unforgettable Fire when the band members had recently just earned enough money to finally buy their own houses.

But, everyone must remember that the Elevation Tour was actually not even supposed to have 3rd leg that returned to the USA. The original plan was just to play for 5 months with 50 Arena shows in North America, and 30-35 shows in Europe.

The band were much more interested in going back into the studio and recording and only added the 3rd leg of Elevation at the last second. Of course, despite the drive to go back into the studio to come out with a new album sooner rather than later, the wait between ATYCLB and HTDAAB became the longest wait between albums in U2 history.

 

[Bono's shades]

I think one reason the Stones can sell out stadiums easier (at least in the U.S.) than U2 is demographics. The majority of Rolling Stones fans are baby boomers, and just the sheer number of people in that particular age group guarantees they will have more fans that U2, whose fans tend to be younger.

And on a totally unrelated note, I also would not pay $450 to see any band - even U2. Although the Bono foot massage does sound tempting.

 

[STING2]

I think one reason the Stones can sell out stadiums easier (at least in the U.S.) than U2 is demographics. The majority of Rolling Stones fans are baby boomers, and just the sheer number of people in that particular age group guarantees they will have more fans that U2, whose fans tend to be younger.

And on a totally unrelated note, I also would not pay $450 to see any band - even U2. Although the Bono foot massage does sound tempting.

I'm actually not sure that if it really is easier for the Stones to sellout Stadiums in the USA than U2 anymore. U2 could have easily have played stadiums in the majority of the cities they are playing on this tour and soldout at essentially the same price level. Its a well known fact that the 78 arena dates U2 will have played by the end of the year in the USA is definitely an underbooking. The current Rolling Stones tour only involves 17 Stadium, many of them small one's in never played before locations.

Still, I agree that demographics over the Rolling Stones career have indeed played a role at some level. The Baby Boom generation has had an impact on just about every area of the economic life of the country and this may play a role in the Rolling Stones historical dominance in concert drawing power. But, it has not translated into continued strong album sales over the last 25 years.

In a few weeks, we should be able to see the first Boxscores of the Rolling Stones tour, provided that Michael Cohl does not chicken out, like on the last tour, and not release them.

We'll then be able to find out the true average ticket price for the shows which is not $450 dollars.

 

[financeguy]

Hell, the band went there in 1984 prior to the release of The Unforgettable Fire when the band members had recently just earned enough money to finally buy their own houses.

Good point, this is testament to how hard U2 were prepared to work to build the fan base in the early years - just look at the number of Aussie and NZ posters on here (although some of them are understandably pissed off at having to wait so long for the current tour to come around).

 

[martha]

Homework?

Not you, marvin.

 

[Axver]

Good point, this is testament to how hard U2 were prepared to work to build the fan base in the early years - just look at the number of Aussie and NZ posters on here (although some of them are understandably pissed off at having to wait so long for the current tour to come around).

I'm still waiting for Elevation.

 

[U2girl]

- That they seem to have learned from these tours that the profits are much bigger up North and hesitate to go South again.


- Again, inflation and currency changes cannot in any possible way explain a 680% increase in tickets prices in 13 years in the US(!). That's an absurd argument.

Zoo TV didn't really make that much money anyway - the tour merchandise saved them. Popmart indeed lost money in the South according to McGuiness - they were doing fine in Europe and US.
Still it's interesting to know that for all your "money" talk they travelled the most with their most elaborate tours.
Shouldn't they have been avoiding the southern hemispere like the plague in the 90s, according to you?

I never said currency changes and inflation explain everything about the ticket prices, but it's a part of it.

Mofo: so far all the info points to arena shows outside of Europe.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Go back and do some homework. All of this information is available for you to read. Australians were complaining about the tickets prices publically; the country was having economic difficulties at that time.

Just a point, could people not make Australia to be some third world country with a collapsing economy such as Argentina or somesuch? We're not living on food handouts here!

Our currency does have fluctuations in relation to the almightly US dollar but I, like many in my country, could afford to have an overseas holiday that year. Cheers!

 

[U2Man]

I never said currency changes and inflation explain everything about the ticket prices, but it's a part of it.

Inflation Annual Change - U.S. (1984-2004)

PPI* CPI**
1992 0.6% 3.0%
1993 1.5% 3.0%
1994 1.3% 2.6%
1995 3.6% 2.8%
1996 2.4% 3.0%
1997 -0.1% 2.3%
1998 -2.5% 1.6%
1999 0.9% 2.2%
2000 5.7% 3.4%
2001 1.1% 2.8%
2002 -2.3% 1.6%
2003 5.3% 2.3%
2004 -0.7% -0.1%

*All Commodities portion of the Producer Price Index
**Consumer Price Index
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005.

According to this, inflation can only explain a 35% increase in ticket prices (roughly) since ZOO-TV. We've seen a 680% increase.

 

[U2Man]

Zoo TV didn't really make that much money anyway - the tour merchandise saved them. Popmart indeed lost money in the South according to McGuiness - they were doing fine in Europe and US.
Still it's interesting to know that for all your "money" talk they travelled the most with their most elaborate tours.
Shouldn't they have been avoiding the southern hemispere like the plague in the 90s, according to you?

I stand by what I have said. You are contradicting yourself here. You just quoted McGuiness for saying that they lost money in the South during PopMart and now you ask me if I think it - financially - was a good idea to travel there with the tour. No, I agree with McGuiness, financially it seems to have been a bad idea - and my point is that they have learned from this, again.

 

[U2girl]

Inflation Annual Change - U.S. (1984-2004)

PPI* CPI**
1992 0.6% 3.0%
1993 1.5% 3.0%
1994 1.3% 2.6%
1995 3.6% 2.8%
1996 2.4% 3.0%
1997 -0.1% 2.3%
1998 -2.5% 1.6%
1999 0.9% 2.2%
2000 5.7% 3.4%
2001 1.1% 2.8%
2002 -2.3% 1.6%
2003 5.3% 2.3%
2004 -0.7% -0.1%

*All Commodities portion of the Producer Price Index
**Consumer Price Index
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005.

According to this, inflation can only explain a 35% increase in ticket prices (roughly) since ZOO-TV. We've seen a 680% increase.

I never said currency changes and inflation explain everything about the ticket prices, but it's a part of it. Read this thread and you will see other reasons too.

 

[U2girl]

I stand by what I have said. You are contradicting yourself here. You just quoted McGuiness for saying that they lost money in the South during PopMart and now you ask me if I think it - financially - was a good idea to travel there with the tour. No, I agree with McGuiness, financially it seems to have been a bad idea - and my point is that they have learned from this, again.

You said they don't want to go South
but they did with their most elaborate tours and it looks like Vertigo tour will too. (as did UF tour and Lovetown - even skipping US)
I am asking your explanation for it - as it contradicts your claims about U2 running away from Southern hemisphere.

 

[U2Man]

You said they don't want to go South
but they did with their most elaborate tours and it looks like Vertigo tour will too. (as did UF tour and Lovetown - even skipping US)
I am asking your explanation for it - as it contradicts your claims about U2 running away from Southern hemisphere.

It will be interesting to see if the Vertigo tour will go to the South. We cannot know yet. What is for sure, though, is that it wasn't planned at the start of the tour. Only Europe and the US were, it seems.

Running away from the Southern Hemisphere? The fact that ZOO-TV and PopMart went to the Southern Hemisphere doesn't contradict anything I have said here. I have said that they haven't visited the place since they realised that they lost money there the last time they did. So, they concentrate on the markets where they know for sure that they ARE going to make money.

 

[U2Man]

Then blame the game, not the player.

Oh and I wonder how much oil and gasoline cost back in 1992. (it would also be a much fairer comparison to look at average prices) That was my point with the inflation comment. Also demand lifted those prices and the elaborate stage designs (that you so dearly love) and larger tour crews that need to be payed.

I *have* read the thread, FYI.

Gasolin prices? Nah, they haven't increased 680%.

Elaborate stage designs? ZOO-TV was the big spectacle, not Elevation or the US Vertigo.

Larger tour crews? I think they were just as big during ZOO-TV and PopMart.

The only valid explanation you give here is higher demand - and we're back to my point: U2, like the Stones, charge what people are willing to pay.

 

[U2girl]

It will be interesting to see if the Vertigo tour will go to the South. We cannot know yet. What is for sure, though, is that it wasn't planned at the start of the tour. Only Europe and the US were, it seems.

Then what was McGuiness talking about early this year, before the tour started, when he said "115 shows, 10 shows in Australia/Japan"? (if we put aside rumours about Mexico and Brazil) Surely Vertigo is more expensive than Elevation...

Zoo TV and Popmart losing money comments were aimed at Mofo.

Read other replies too: whole industry ticket prices went up, concerts these days are more expensive to put on than they were 15 or 20 years ago...gasolin was just an example of a commodity where price went up as years go by (hint - as did the concert tickets).

 

[U2girl]

I *have* read the thread, FYI.

Gasolin prices? Nah, they haven't increased 680%.

Elaborate stage designs? ZOO-TV was the big spectacle, not Elevation or the US Vertigo.

Larger tour crews? I think they were just as big during ZOO-TV and PopMart.

The only valid explanation you give here is higher demand - and we're back to my point: U2, like the Stones, charge what people are willing to pay.

Doesn't look like it.

Bigger stage and a larger tour crew (than the 80s) = expensive tickets. Zoo TV and Popmart tickets were more expensive than the 80's shows and there was a big demand, on the other hand US dollar was stronger in the 90's than it is now.

U2 could charge more.

 

[U2Man]

Then what was McGuiness talking about early this year, before the tour started, when he said "115 shows, 10 shows in Australia/Japan"? (if we put aside rumours about Mexico and Brazil) Surely Vertigo is more expensive than Elevation...

Zoo TV and Popmart losing money comments were aimed at Mofo.

Read other replies too: whole industry ticket prices went up, concerts these days are more expensive to put on than they were 15 or 20 years ago...gasolin was just an example of a commodity where price went up as years go by (hint - as did the concert tickets).

Again, I don't know what your source is, but so far nothing has been confirmed about Australia and Japan.

Yes all the things you mention can explain an increase in ticket prices. Not a 680% increase, though. Only higher demand can explain that.

 

[U2Man]

Doesn't look like it.

Bigger stage and a larger tour crew (than the 80s) = expensive tickets. Zoo TV and Popmart tickets were more expensive than the 80's shows and there was a big demand, on the other hand US dollar was stronger in the 90's than it is now.

U2 could charge more.

ZOO-TV -> Elevation, Vertigo : smaller stage, less expensive setup, yet we see a 680% increase in ticket prices.

U2 could charge more?

(I didn't know you were U2's accountant to know they could charge more than they do).

 

[U2girl]

Again, I don't know what your source is, but so far nothing has been confirmed about Australia and Japan.

Yes all the things you mention can explain an increase in ticket prices. Not a 680% increase, though. Only higher demand can explain that.

Paul McGuiness. Good enough for you?

Again, it's a combination of several things that led to that increase. Demand is only one of them.

Since U2 sold out all the shows, doesn't that mean they're not charging too much?

 

[U2Man]

Paul McGuiness. Good enough for you?

Again, it's a combination of several things that led to that increase. Demand is only one of them.

Since U2 sold out all the shows, doesn't that mean they're not charging too much?

Did you hear it from his mouth? Or is it like the various comments from Bono that is being quoted everywhere? Because in that case, it is NOT good enough for me, I've learned.

As I have tried to explain to you, a lot of things have lead to an increase in ticket prices - but I don't think a 680% increase can be explained by these. Only demand can explain it.

U2 sold out the shows, yes. That is an objective in itself because everything else WOULD give the tour bad press. I think that is the reason why they play arenas in the US. The secret is to sell out all tickets AND do it at the maximum possible ticket prices. Sure, maybe they COULD have charged even more, because you cannot predict the demand with complete certainty, but you can be sure that a lot of efforts have gone into calculating what the ticket prices should be on this tour - to maximize income and sell out simultaneously. And I think Chizip is right - based on the experiences with demand on this tour - the next time, we WILL see even higher ticket prices.

 

[yimou]

based on the experiences with demand on this tour - the next time, we WILL see even higher ticket prices.

I agree

 

[U2girl]

Did you hear it from his mouth? Or is it like the various comments from Bono that is being quoted everywhere? Because in that case, it is NOT good enough for me, I've learned.

As I have tried to explain to you, a lot of things have lead to an increase in ticket prices - but I don't think a 680% increase can be explained by these. Only demand can explain it.

U2 sold out the shows, yes. That is an objective in itself because everything else WOULD give the tour bad press. I think that is the reason why they play arenas in the US. The secret is to sell out all tickets AND do it at the maximum possible ticket prices. Sure, maybe they COULD have charged even more, because you cannot predict the demand with complete certainty, but you can be sure that a lot of efforts have gone into calculating what the ticket prices should be on this tour - to maximize income and sell out simultaneously. And I think Chizip is right - based on the experiences with demand on this tour - the next time, we WILL see even higher ticket prices.

I think his word is worth more than what Bono has said about Mexico and Brazil. (It was posted on interference, probably also U2.com.

And what have I been saying? A lot of things lead to ticket price increase - demand is a big factor but it isn't the single cause.

True, not selling out shows is bad press. It is also true it helps playing smaller venues to have the demand/hype increase. (along with a popular album of course) That said I thought they would play stadiums in US on Elevation, at least the biggest markets like New York, Chicago, Boston, LA. (yes it was an arena tour but they still transformed it for example Slane or Torino)
Of course the ticket price is calculated on each tour. Still, I think a band as popular as U2 could get away with higher prices.

Yes, next tour(s) will be more expensive. I think it will be a long while before we see anything close to Stones' prices.

 

[U2Man]

I think his word is worth more than what Bono has said about Mexico and Brazil. (It was posted on interference, probably also U2.com.

And what have I been saying? A lot of things lead to ticket price increase - demand is a big factor but it isn't the single cause.

True, not selling out shows is bad press. It is also true it helps playing smaller venues to have the demand/hype increase. (along with a popular album of course) That said I thought they would play stadiums in US on Elevation, at least the biggest markets like New York, Chicago, Boston, LA. (yes it was an arena tour but they still transformed it for example Slane or Torino)
Of course the ticket price is calculated on each tour. Still, I think a band as popular as U2 could get away with higher prices.

Yes, next tour(s) will be more expensive. I think it will be a long while before we see anything close to Stones' prices.

I think our disagreement concerns how much weight demand has. I think it's by far the most important part determining the increase in ticket prices. The other factors you mention are minor, considering the increase is 680%, IMO. You don't seem to think so.

Again, I think the popularity of this tour will be taken into consideration when the ticket prices are to be calculated on the next tour - and if U2's popularity concerning concerts continues to rise, the ticket prices will sooner or later hit Stones' level. I refuse to believe they are an exception, or that Stones are more greedy than U2, for that matter.

 

[U2FanPeter]

Zoo TV didn't really make that much money anyway - the tour merchandise saved them. Popmart indeed lost money in the South according to McGuiness - they were doing fine in Europe and US.

Why is this above sourceless misinformation repeated over and over on this board?

The Indoor Broadcast needed 75% capacity to break even, which by arena standards is quite risky. All dates were basically 100%, plus they had an agressive merchandising tables.

POPMART - they intentionally used US and Europe money to visit unique corners of the globe. There were tentative dates for China and Egypt. I don't think U2 visited Sarajevo to make money. Also, the South American dates were subsidized by MTV.

While were here, Germany and one France date were some of the worst attended shows of the POPMART tour. 90% of shows in the US did highly respectable business.

u2fp

 

[Mofo]

Mofo: so far all the info points to arena shows outside of Europe.

What makes you say this? Unfortunately there are not very good arenas in Mexico, except in Monterrey but I pray they don't go there because the audience sucks, as for Brasil I don't know if they have decent arenas, isn't that one of the reasons of Europe getting a Stadium tour in the last years, lack of good arenas?

 

[martha]

Just a point, could people not make Australia to be some third world country with a collapsing economy such as Argentina or somesuch? We're not living on food handouts here!

Settle down. Geez. "Economic difficulties" is what I said. I didn't say anything to get excited about. Go back and reread things. People in Australia were complaining about ticket prices for Popmart because they were too expensive for many Australians to afford. That's what was happening. If that offends you, there's nothing I can do for you.

I didn't say Australia was waiting for UN food drops.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

to get away from the idiotic bickering over how much u2 could charge for tickets for a second...

i was wondering the other day about the title of the rolling stones' new album... "a bigger bang"

with bono running his wee ass all over the world talking about how u2 is the greatest band in the world, with baisicly every music magazine and tv show saying the same things, with u2 baisicly completely ripping off the stones' flatbed through new york thing and making it their own... even though the two bands are quite friendly with each other... esp. mick & bono... do ya think there's a chance that the stones took a subtle shot at u2's "...atomic bomb" by naming the album "a bigger bang" ?

discuss...

disclaimer- yes i know... my theory is stupdendously moronic... but then again, we're talking about a forum that has had 500 post threads over the hidden meaning behind "uno, dos, tres catorce"... and this theory, while incredibly stupid, is by no means any more moronic than those threads

 

[ramblin rose]

Personally, I think your theory deserves its own thread.