To bad ticket prices are so high on this tour!!

[NoControl]

Re: A lot of posts

OUT OF CONTROL...some interesting thoughts I must admit. I was just curious as to why, if you feel this way, do you have so many posts (274) on this board? I would've thought someone with your stance would not even waste time on this website or with even writing such a thoughtful, lengthy post. I'm not trying to attack you...just curious.

Good question. It's because I like to infuse a bit of reality into this forum, while many members here seem to indulge in their own brand of fantasy land. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing...

Originally posted by quasi1970 I would tend to agree that U2 is not the same band they were "in the day"...but I still enjoy their music and concerts just as much. I do feel that they can be a bit too self conscious at times but who isn't?

Self-consciousness and greed are two totally different things.

Originally posted by quasi1970 The music business is a tough one and once I accepted that it is a business and that the concept of "selling out" can be tricky, I've made peace with a lot of the things you talked about. Sure, Pearl Jam (another fav band of mine) seems to be doing a better job with handling their fan club, ticket sales, bootlegs albums etc. but how will they be handling things in 10 years (when they reach the same "age" as U2")?

Well, seeing as they've been around now for 15 years, I'd say far better than U2 could ever dream of.

Originally posted by quasi1970 I saw U2 in 1992 (about 12 years after their "launch") and ticket prices were only $25 for the Zoo TV concert (up front). Currently, tickets for the floor ($49.50) is not that high...a $25 hike in 13 years.

But that's not the average price. The average price is $100. And the $50 bottom tier price only comprises 4-5,000 of the 15-20,000 tickets sold within each Arena's capacity.

Originally posted by quasi1970 As for all the city planning/ticket sales deal, I don't think any one person can say "this is why it happened the way it did". That's just silly no matter what the patterns say. Do you think they are devilishly rubbing their hands in some back room planning their popularity/demand? There is no reason for them to do this...I think they're popular enough.

I wouldn't state it that way. But I know for a fact that they're more concerned with being popular compared any artist(s) on earth at this point in their career. "Sold out" tour, equals hype. Hype generally equals more promotion and hence greater record sales, etc...

Originally posted by quasi1970 Uh, I don't think all 90,000 fans were cheated. You basically heard mostly from those that did not get tickets (and they had a a right to make that known). You have a tendency to make very extreme statements which makes your arguments hard to accept or take seriously.

But the vast majority got ripped off, and most of them have seemed to have turned a blind eye. I mean, am I missing something or are U2 fans the most delusional of any fans out there?

Originally posted by quasi1970 In terms of the U2.com membership, I got my tickets no problem for the first leg. Yes, a lot of people did not but that seems to have been fixed with the fall leg. Nearly everybody who didn't get tickets for the first round were able to get tickets no problem for the fall (from what I have seen in the yahoo groups U2 e-mail list). Yeah, they messed up the first time around and should've had it right in the first place but they didn't and did their best to fix it for the fall tour. I also had my u2.com password re-enabled for the Fall Leg and was able to secure GA tickets for the fall. I even got a refund for 2 tickets that I bought through my membership the other day (that I did not ask for...I just got an e-mail from U2.com that they had secured lower ticketmaster surcharges and was refunding the difference to me).

They fixed it? Nearly everyone received their promised "premium tickets" for the third leg? You have to be joking? LOL I don't think so. And what about the fans in markets where they're not returning to for the third leg? Fans is Vancouver, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, San Diego, etc.? What about their $40 down the drane? What about the 3.2 Million U2 banked for not one minutes work? That's called fraud, that last time I checked. But I guess it's ok because they're a very popular band?

Originally posted by quasi1970 You are absolutely correct on this one. I guess that's why U2 tickets are more expensive than they were in 1992. In that case, $50 for floor seats are a good deal in my book.

But every artist has tier prices where the bottom tier price for mainly the hard to sell seats in the balcony are cheap...

Originally posted by quasi1970 Basically, I try not to get so obsessed and worried about this or that. I like U2's music, enjoy them in concert, feel like they are worth the money and leave it at that. Call me a sucker, blind follower, whatever. I like a band I buy their album and see them in concert. I like Shonen Knife so I'm seeing them tomorrow in a small club for $12. I like U2 so I'm seeing them next Monday for $50. Life's too short to get wrapped up in theories as to why a band has gone downhill. Just enjoy the music...or not.

So it's being obsessive to state that U2 are con artists?

Originally posted by quasi1970 All in all, you sound like a big fan that got screwed and are pretty angry. Sorry about the experience. I would probably move on and ignore U2 as they have let you down. That's the best way to get over dissapointment.

Yeah, I know. Everyone who got frauded should just turn a blind eye and move on. Give me a fucking break!

 

[NoControl]

NoControl - I basically agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, you mention that U2 is less popular than the Stones, The Eagles, Madonna, and McCartney. I really disagree with that.

Well, it's a fact that these artists can outdraw U2 in most or just about every market in the world.

Originally posted by matt_tx00 I place U2 right up there with all those acts. Honestly, the U2 shows have sold out just as fast as the Madonna ones did last year and their GA tix have been selling on e-bay and other sites for as much as Madonna's floor tix sold.

U2 is easily a top ticket group, and I really do think U2 charges "more reasonable" prices than some of their top ticket counterparts in the industry. When the other top ticket groups are charging $300 for top seats and U2 is charging $165 - this is really good. The U2 floor tickets for $49.50 are an absolute steal for nowadays.

Madonna's average price on her Re-Invention tour was around $141 last year. U2's average price this year worldwide is $95. We're talking about a nearly 50% difference here.

 

[NoControl]

Think about it though... IS it a free market? It seems like there is not a level playing field when it comes to obtaining tickets.

I mean, I consider it quite ironic that this very forum is sponsored by a ticket broker who likely has many of the tickets that should have been originally purchased by members of this forum in the first place.

This is the best post I've ever read on this forum.

Thank you.

 

[bcrt2000]

Well, it's a fact that these artists can outdraw U2 in most or just about every market in the world.



Madonna's average price on her Re-Invention tour was around $141 last year. U2's average price this year worldwide is $95. We're talking about a nearly 50% difference here.

Yeah, and yet you see prices on ebay & ticket broker sites going for 2-4 times the original price

the reality is, U2 is underpricing their tickets

and you can't argue that they are not underpricing when in every big market the concerts have sold out in less than an hour...

and i'd also love to see madonna sell out a stadium tour in europe...

if you've checked the stats, the biggest drawer in terms of cash in concerts all-time in NA is the Rolling Stones, and #2 is U2's Elevation Tour

 

[bcrt2000]

http://www.macphisto.net/article225.html

"If estimates for the coming dates are correct, U2's total North American take for the tour of $102 million would rank third among the top-grossing tours of all time, behind the 1994 tours of the Rolling Stones ($121.2 million) and Pink Floyd ($103.5 million).

U2 has been a consistent draw on the road for years: Its sprawling 1997 ``Pop Mart'' tour grossed nearly $80 million, and 1992's ``Zooropa'' tour pulled in $67 million, Pollstar said. Those two outings rank sixth and 11th, respectively, among the all-time biggest. "

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,9304,00.html

"Here is Pollstar's list of the top 20 tours of 2001, based on ticket sales:

1. U2, $109.7 million
2. 'N Sync, $86.8 million
3. Backstreet Boys, $82.1 million
4. Dave Matthews Band, $60.5 million
5. Elton John and Billy Joel, $57.2 million
6. Madonna, $54.7 million
7. Aerosmith, $49.3 million
8. Janet Jackson, $42.1 million
9. Eric Clapton, $38.8 million
10. Neil Diamond, $35.4 million
11. Matchbox Twenty, $28.4 million
12. Rod Stewart, $27.2 million
13. Jimmy Buffett, $26.9 million
14. Andrea Bocelli, $26.8 million
15. Ozzfest 2001, $26.4 million
16. Sade, $26.2 million
17. Tim McGraw, $24.9 million
18. Britney Spears, $23.7 million
19. James Taylor, $23 million
20. Tool, $20.4 million"

 

[bcrt2000]

http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/03/0753.cfm
(before the sales of the fall tour)

"The Vertigo tour begins at the end of March and already 2.2 million tickets have been sold. According to Billboard.com, ticket sales have already reached around $185 million U.S., or over $220 million Canadian. By the end of the tour the band will have made almost $300 million U.S, nearly $400 million Canadian, making it one of the highest grossing tours ever. "

 

[bcrt2000]

http://www.u2faqs.com/live/#1

"U2 tours by the numbers

* 1985: The Unforgettable Fire tour was the 18th highest grossing tour of the year, covering 30 cities.
* 1987: The Joshua Tree tour was the top grossing tour with 79 shows in 50 cities.
* 1992: Zoo TV was the top grossing tour with 73 shows in 61 cities.
* 1997: PopMart was the second highest grossing tour in the U.S. at $79.9 million with 46 shows in 37 cities. A total of 1.7 million tickets were sold in the U.S.
* 2001: The Elevation Tour was reported as a sell out at all 113 shows throughout three legs in North America and Europe. The tour grossed $109.7 million USD in North America, making it the highest-grossing tour of 2001 and the second highest of all time, behind only the Rolling Stones' Voodoo Lounge Tour of 1994."

 

[pop_mofo]

Re: Re: A lot of posts

Yeah, I know. Everyone who got frauded should just turn a blind eye and move on. Give me a fucking break! [/B]

Just out of curiosity, how is it fraud when they offered FULL refunds to anyone who was unsatisfied after the first pre-sale.

Fact is, the first pre-sales were a disaster, but the band has done their best to make it right. Whether or not we are happy with that is up to the individual. But the band has put their best foot forward to correct the error and did offer full refunds to those who weren't satisfied.

Peace.

 

[cdparky]

http://www.u2faqs.com/live/#1

"U2 tours by the numbers

* 1985: The Unforgettable Fire tour was the 18th highest grossing tour of the year, covering 30 cities.
* 1987: The Joshua Tree tour was the top grossing tour with 79 shows in 50 cities.
* 1992: Zoo TV was the top grossing tour with 73 shows in 61 cities.
* 1997: PopMart was the second highest grossing tour in the U.S. at $79.9 million with 46 shows in 37 cities. A total of 1.7 million tickets were sold in the U.S.
* 2001: The Elevation Tour was reported as a sell out at all 113 shows throughout three legs in North America and Europe. The tour grossed $109.7 million USD in North America, making it the highest-grossing tour of 2001 and the second highest of all time, behind only the Rolling Stones' Voodoo Lounge Tour of 1994."

Oh no, now we're about to get the whole "Pink Floyd are the biggest draw ever and Metallica are the biggest band in the universe" bore again.

 

[neutral]

Oh no, now we're about to get the whole "Pink Floyd are the biggest draw ever and Metallica are the biggest band in the universe" bore again.

We'd better not.


er, sorry guys, didn't mean to sound so short.

 

[bcrt2000]

Oh no, now we're about to get the whole "Pink Floyd are the biggest draw ever and Metallica are the biggest band in the universe" bore again.

I was just making a point that NoControl was totally off base with his/her accusations. To start arguing about Pink Floyd/Metallica would be off-topic

 

[cdparky]

I was just making a point that NoControl was totally off base with his/her accusations. To start arguing about Pink Floyd/Metallica would be off-topic

Comment wasn't aimed at you, but the number of times this sort of topic comes up and people start waffling on about Pink Floyd / Metallica......

 

[doctorwho]

Re: Re: A lot of posts

But the vast majority got ripped off, and most of them have seemed to have turned a blind eye. I mean, am I missing something or are U2 fans the most delusional of any fans out there?

I disagree with your entire post, but felt you had a right to your opinion.

However, I had to reply to this.

U2.com offered to give the $40 membership fee BACK to those who felt that they were cheated. So at no point was anyone "ripped off". Hence, no one is turning a "blind eye". U2 rectified the situation.

For those fans who decided to remain members of U2.com, we scored BRILLIANT tickets for the third leg of the tour. So again, no one got ripped off. The $40 fee not only enabled us to get great seats, but also allows us to interact with the band's website. If you feel that the site isn't worth $40 - fair enough. Don't subscribe. It's your choice. And I do see a drop-off in subscribers next year (when people debate about rejoining the website for another $40).

Are the tickets expensive? Sure - so is the iPod. So are cars. So are top-line computers. All items could be less $$. A lot of factors play into the price of items. Considering that U2 almost ran into the red on a few tours (one of them being the wildly successful ZOO tour), I'm not surprised U2 decided to increase ticket prices and allow themselves to make a bit of profit.

As others stated, the best tickets are the $49.50 GA's and these are not much more than the $35 that I paid for ZOO TV 13 years ago. Maybe the overall ticket price averages to around $100, but that's still substantially less expensive than most artists. Perhaps that's a rationalization, but then again, perhaps not. As I look around at the expense of items (with gas being $2/gallon and milk being over $4/gallon), I realize that U2's ticket prices are not only fair, but almost cheap! For a band of their caliber and popularity, I think they could charge a lot more.

 

[babyman]

personally, i've never payed so much for a concert, 54 euro, it's a hit in the eye, but i hope it's gonna be that worth

 

[NoControl]

Yeah, and yet you see prices on ebay & ticket broker sites going for 2-4 times the original price

eBay isn't ticketbastard and does not make up the majority of the tickets that are sold. And what you say is not entirely true. For example: Denver scalpers can't get rid of their tickets, even below face value.

Originally posted by bcrt2000 the reality is, U2 is underpricing their tickets

OMG.

Originally posted by bcrt2000 and you can't argue that they are not underpricing when in every big market the concerts have sold out in less than an hour...

That's because scalpers/brokers have up to 50% of the house and take part in "backdoor deals" with CC and ticketbastard.

Originally posted by bcrt2000 and i'd also love to see madonna sell out a stadium tour in europe...

She wouldn't even have to cough to do that at U2's prices.

Originally posted by bcrt2000 if you've checked the stats, the biggest drawer in terms of cash in concerts all-time in NA is the Rolling Stones, and #2 is U2's Elevation Tour

I know that stats off by heart and you can't look at it that way. The only reason why The Stones and U2 have made more capital than Floyd is because Floyd haven't recorded and/or toured in 11 years and do things periodically. I've gone over this 54 million times with explicit details. I think I'll save the members of this site a few million less pages to read and not go over it again. If you're really interested however, then read my post history...

 

[NoControl]

Re: Re: Re: A lot of posts

U2.com offered to give the $40 membership fee BACK to those who felt that they were cheated. So at no point was anyone "ripped off". Hence, no one is turning a "blind eye". U2 rectified the situation.

WELL AFTER the scandal hit the media, THEN that happened. If the media hadn't gotten a hold of it, then...

Are the tickets expensive? Sure - so is the iPod. So are cars. So are top-line computers.

Those comparisons are totally ridiculous. Don't even get me started.

Originally posted by doctorwho All items could be less $$. A lot of factors play into the price of items. Considering that U2 almost ran into the red on a few tours (one of them being the wildly successful ZOO tour), I'm not surprised U2 decided to increase ticket prices and allow themselves to make a bit of profit.

I'm not pissed off that they've raised prices for basically the same reason either, but it's definitely been too much for the past five years.

Originally posted by doctorwho As others stated, the best tickets are the $49.50 GA's and these are not much more than the $35 that I paid for ZOO TV 13 years ago.

But they're extremely difficult to obtain and only make up around 12% of the Arena's capacity.

Originally posted by doctorwho Maybe the overall ticket price averages to around $100, but that's still substantially less expensive than most artists.

You must be joking? If not, then list the artists than have a higher average ticket price than U2. I can only think of less than 10.

Originally posted by doctorwho Perhaps that's a rationalization, but then again, perhaps not. As I look around at the expense of items (with gas being $2/gallon and milk being over $4/gallon), I realize that U2's ticket prices are not only fair, but almost cheap! For a band of their caliber and popularity, I think they could charge a lot more.

If they charged more they would only be selling out 50% of their shows in North America or less...

 

[nicholsfornixon]

I understand frustration over expensive tickets, but people need to understand the principle of prices. There's no inherent value for anything, just what people are willing to pay. If U2 can sell out Madison Square Garden while charging $50-150 per ticket then they have every right to do so.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

I laugh now when I look at my ZOO TV ticket stub. A nosebleed seat then (which is what my best friend and I had) was $35. I'm only paying $20 more than that now to be in the egg/oval/yolk/whatever this time around.

 

[bcrt2000]

I know that stats off by heart and you can't look at it that way. The only reason why The Stones and U2 have made more capital than Floyd is because Floyd haven't recorded and/or toured in 11 years and do things periodically. I've gone over this 54 million times with explicit details. I think I'll save the members of this site a few million less pages to read and not go over it again. If you're really interested however, then read my post history...

fuck floyd, its not about fucking floyd or whatever, its about your baseless shit about u2 this and u2 that, and even if u2 isn't #2, is #3 that fucking bad? you need to keep it fucking real

if the seats end up being empty in all of the shows then i'll agree with you, but i don't even think we need to wait for this tour because we already know the history of the elevation tour-- one where they were coming off one of the worst periods in their history.. and right now u2 has hit another popularity peak, and HTDAAB is their fastest selling album yet

and anyways, when it comes down to it, you aren't a U2 fan because of their commercial success, its about the art, its about the music, its about the feelings you feel when you listen to them, its about the connections the music makes with your life... and if its not, then i don't know what you're doing here right now

 

[U2FanPeter]

Just for the record, Pollstar.com states that the average US concert ticket price last year was about $48 or so. U2 have 20-30% of their tickets at this price. The Canadian lower tier price tickets are infact UNDER the American national average.

I really don't know how people complain.

U2FP

 

[popshopper]

Just for the record, Pollstar.com states that the average US concert ticket price last year was about $48 or so. U2 have 20-30% of their tickets at this price. The Canadian lower tier price tickets are infact UNDER the American national average.

I really don't know how people complain.

U2FP

Try living in the UK. We've been gouged this time.

At Zoo Tv, the average prices was around £25. At Popmart it was £35. Now its £55 (including booking fee). In US terms it works out at around $100 dollars for the cheapest ticket, US ticket prices are around £25 I think. Even Europe are paying far less than we are, I think it works out to around £40 per ticket there.

No to mention that similar stadium outdoor concerts this year such as Oasis and REM are priced at the £35-£45 mark.

We just have to wonder why the UK fans are being hammered far more than any others. They're playing enough shows in the UK to more than cover any additional travelling expenses and Stadium hire costs aren't really an issue as most locations have alternative venues of similar size within three hours drive. Indeed Scotland has three bigger and better stadiums (Murryfield 70000, Celtic Park 65000, Ibrox Park 52000) within a 45 minute drive of hampden. Only in london would they fail to find a nearby suitable alternative stadium.

 

[bcrt2000]

Try living in the UK. We've been gouged this time.

At Zoo Tv, the average prices was around £25. At Popmart it was £35. Now its £55 (including booking fee). In US terms it works out at around $100 dollars for the cheapest ticket, US ticket prices are around £25 I think. Even Europe are paying far less than we are, I think it works out to around £40 per ticket there.

No to mention that similar stadium outdoor concerts this year such as Oasis and REM are priced at the £35-£45 mark.

We just have to wonder why the UK fans are being hammered far more than any others. They're playing enough shows in the UK to more than cover any additional travelling expenses and Stadium hire costs aren't really an issue as most locations have alternative venues of similar size within three hours drive. Indeed Scotland has three bigger and better stadiums (Murryfield 70000, Celtic Park 65000, Ibrox Park 52000) within a 45 minute drive of hampden. Only in london would they fail to find a nearby suitable alternative stadium.

i'm guessing because U2 are insanely popular in the UK compared to the US, so the demand is there for ticket prices that high

 

[U2FanPeter]

In 2001, weren't the 'best' UK tickets half the price of the American counterpart?

Also, if everything is sold out, is must mean that they are selling tickets at 'street value'.

U2FP

 

[ImOuttaControl]

I'll say what I've been saying about the price of tickets all along. Just because they CAN charge high prices doesn't mean they SHOULD.

I was lucky enough to get GA's to 3 different shows, but I don't plan on being on the floor for all 3 shows. I'm gonna trade 2 of my Chicago GA's for good seats because there is no way in hell I'll pay $160 each for tickets.

Call me a cynic, but the number 1 reason for the high ticket prices are for reasons involving ego. U2 grossed 109 million in the U.S. on the Elevation Tour, just behind the Rolling Stones 121 million dollar tour in 1994. There's no doubt in my mind that U2 wants to own the title of "highest grossing tour ever." In other words, people look at that as "the biggest/best tour ever!" By jacking up the prices this time around, they'll no doubt hold that title after the Vertigo Tour.

 

[bcrt2000]

i'm not sure if you guys ever took any business courses, but its all about supply & demand...

and its Paul M.'s duty to maximize revenues & keeping shows sold out at the same time, so i don't think we should be trying to blame anyone because thats how the music world spins

and also, U2 has been very generous with GA tickets-- if it were any other band they'd be selling the GA's for $150 -- it doesn't make any sense for them to be so cheap when they are in the highest demand

 

[NoControl]

i'm not sure if you guys ever took any business courses, but its all about supply & demand...

Ok, that's it.

You couldn't be more wrong. It has nothing to do with supply and demand...at least in North America. U2 are playing ARENAS (15-20,000 seaters), not STADIUMS (40-80,000 seaters) here this year. Hence there is plenty of supply if they lowered their average ticket price and played Stadiums. But that's not going to happen...

Originally posted by bcrt2000 and also, U2 has been very generous with GA tickets-- if it were any other band they'd be selling the GA's for $150 -- it doesn't make any sense for them to be so cheap when they are in the highest demand

Yeah, they're generous towards only 10-12% of fans for each show here who were lucky enough to get GAs. Whooooop de dooooo...


As for Pink Floyd:

OMFG. The Floyd have always sold more albums than U2 have. The Floyd have always had higher ticket prices and higher concert attendances than U2 have, in just about every market in the world. The Floyd have always had higher back catalogue sales than U2 has had. And if Floyd toured today, they would crush every single tour out there and gross at least $400 million easily, if they performed in the same markets they did back in '94 and obviously more if they played additional markets. All of this would happen while sustaining Division Bell tour attendance plus their growth rate per market at an average of at least $60-70, since even though their ticket prices increase whenever and wherever they tour, their attendances do as well...in just about every market in the world. You can't say that about virtually any artist(s). This equals on thing:

Pink Floyd is "The Biggest Band In The World" for a band who's still officially together and is more successful than U2, period.

Are you totally insane?

 

[Blue Room]

Ok, that's it.

You couldn't be more wrong. It has nothing to do with supply and demand...at least in North America. U2 are playing ARENAS (15-20,000 seaters), not STADIUMS (40-80,000 seaters) here this year. Hence there is plenty of supply if they lowered their average ticket price and played Stadiums. But that's not going to happen...



Yeah, they're generous towards only 10-12% of fans for each show here who were lucky enough to get GAs. Whooooop de dooooo...


As for Pink Floyd:

OMFG. The Floyd have always sold more albums than U2 have. The Floyd have always had higher ticket prices and higher concert attendances than U2 have, in just about every market in the world. The Floyd have always had higher back catalogue sales than U2 has had. And if Floyd toured today, they would crush every single tour out there and gross at least $400 million easily, if they performed in the same markets they did back in '94 and obviously more if they played additional markets. All of this would happen while sustaining Division Bell tour attendance plus their growth rate per market at an average of at least $60-70, since even though their ticket prices increase whenever and wherever they tour, their attendances do as well...in just about every market in the world. You can't say that about virtually any artist(s). This equals on thing:

Pink Floyd is "The Biggest Band In The World" for a band who's still officially together and is more successful than U2, period.

Are you totally insane?

I understand what you are saying about the stadium thing but you really do need to take a course or re take a course in Economics. It is supply and demand that drives ticket prices. Arenas are a more attractive venue to see an artist in than a stadium. Most people prefer an arena show to a stadium show. So because there is a greater demand for arena show tickets and there are less seats per show, they can charge more for them. That IS supply and demand. You are right in that U2 have chosen to play arenas only on the N. American tour and that keeps the average ticket price higher. But the market would rather see them play an arena than a stadium. You also have to factor in the overhead. U2 are playing MANY arena shows whereas they could satisfy the same market with a couple stadium shows. They could save on expenses by playing fewer dates. So how much are they really cashing in?

U2 has earned the right and has the status and clout to do what they please when it comes to touring. They could be charging even more than they are and would still sellout most venues. So again, how much are they really selling out when they could charge more for tickets and make more money?

The Pink Floyd thing though, I agree with you 100%. Who cares about Pink Floyd anyway??? When was the last time they toured with thier original line up and put out a relevant album??

 

[U2girl]

From what I've seen, US fans payed less for tickets than Europeans.
49 dollars is two thirds of the cheapest European tickets I've seen.

The ones that really got it bad this time are UK fans, now those are HIGH prices.

A band that hasn't put out an album or toured in more than a decade - not to mention being without two members of the original lineup, one of which being part of the songwriting team - doesn't qualify.

 

[bcrt2000]

I understand what you are saying about the stadium thing but you really do need to take a course or re take a course in Economics. It is supply and demand that drives ticket prices. Arenas are a more attractive venue to see an artist in than a stadium. Most people prefer an arena show to a stadium show. So because there is a greater demand for arena show tickets and there are less seats per show, they can charge more for them. That IS supply and demand. You are right in that U2 have chosen to play arenas only on the N. American tour and that keeps the average ticket price higher. But the market would rather see them play an arena than a stadium. You also have to factor in the overhead. U2 are playing MANY arena shows whereas they could satisfy the same market with a couple stadium shows. They could save on expenses by playing fewer dates. So how much are they really cashing in?

U2 has earned the right and has the status and clout to do what they please when it comes to touring. They could be charging even more than they are and would still sellout most venues. So again, how much are they really selling out when they could charge more for tickets and make more money?

The Pink Floyd thing though, I agree with you 100%. Who cares about Pink Floyd anyway??? When was the last time they toured with thier original line up and put out a relevant album??

right on.

@NoControl: where the fuck does pink floyd come into all of this? its not relevant to anything. i never argued for one second whether or not pink floyd was a bigger band. i've actually always contested when its all said and done, chances are u2 will be forgotten, although my opinion might change if the next 2-3 albums sell as much as the current one did, but again its beyond the point.

 

[NoControl]

I understand what you are saying about the stadium thing but you really do need to take a course or re take a course in Economics.

I'm not talking about in general here. I'm talking about this particular situation.

Originally posted by Blue Room It is supply and demand that drives ticket prices. Arenas are a more attractive venue to see an artist in than a stadium. Most people prefer an arena show to a stadium show. So because there is a greater demand for arena show tickets and there are less seats per show, they can charge more for them. That IS supply and demand. You are right in that U2 have chosen to play arenas only on the N. American tour and that keeps the average ticket price higher. But the market would rather see them play an arena than a stadium. You also have to factor in the overhead. U2 are playing MANY arena shows whereas they could satisfy the same market with a couple stadium shows. They could save on expenses by playing fewer dates. So how much are they really cashing in?

That doesn't make any sense, as U2 could draw around twice as many people in Stadiums in North America if the lowered their prices by 50%, hence there isn't a higher demand to see them in Arenas. And they wouldn't necessarily save money on playing more shows within a tour.

Originally posted by Blue Room U2 has earned the right and has the status and clout to do what they please when it comes to touring. They could be charging even more than they are and would still sellout most venues. So again, how much are they really selling out when they could charge more for tickets and make more money?

That ultimately depends on how many shows they'd schedule at higher prices and which markets they'd be performing in.

Originally posted by Blue Room The Pink Floyd thing though, I agree with you 100%. Who cares about Pink Floyd anyway??? When was the last time they toured with thier original line up and put out a relevant album??

When was the last time U2 put out a relevant album? IMO, they were over by 2000 and they're an absolute fucking joke now. And what to you is considered relevant?

I prefer apples myself.