So did U2 sell out with the iTunes ad?

[oceane]

That said, I will give them the benfit of the doubt this time, but I am now officially putting the band on probation, like I did after Pop. One more ad for ANY OTHER type of product, and I am gone from the U2 Family. Out. Fintito. Period. I'd rather Bono divorced Ali and became a smackhead, than see any more of these, for anything else. I don't care if it's 20 yrs from now. And we had damned well not see any Apple logos on the tix etc. My patience will only go so far. They have not crossed the line yet, in my book, but this is a heads up.

I wouldn't go as far as saying I would give up on them, but I'm also not 100% cool with this. I think it`s very borderline. Like it or not, it is using U2's music to promote a product, and I'm not a big fan of this. Of course they are also promoting themselves, and it`s a music product and all, but the first impression is still the same, IMO.

Anyways, I certainly don't consider this 'selling out', but it's a commercial partnership that goes further than what they have done before. And I'm a bit worry to see how far it will go (with the tour, for example). But then again I'll admit I an somewhat of a purist for these type of things...

 

[U2girl]

Even if U2 starts handing out their songs to commercials tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that I enjoy their music.

Last but not least, it is their music and their right to do what they want with it.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Watching an ad featuring not only U2's music, but U2 themselves is a little creepy, but it is iPod/iTunes. I have no problem with that.
Just as long as it's never anything else.

 

[Tizer]

couldn't give a flying turd. Bring on the tunes!!

 

[teebee]

I don't know how I feel about this. It reeks of something the Stones or Aerosmith would do - or, in other words, what a band who is trying to convert the last 3 music fans on earth would do.

I could create a list of bands as long as my arm who would never do this. And I like them just a little bit more for that. Yes, it's promoting a product, and yes I have (and love) my Ipod, so I *get* it.

But why does everything U2 do these days have to be bigger, gaudier, louder?

 

[caragriff]

i understand why they are doing it.
they are a corporation and they are making a business decision here.
because of that decision, vertigo is now the song from that ipod commercial.
good news for u2: most fans don't seem to mind.
i am with the group that is a bit creeped out by our guys turning into little ipod cartoon images.
i don't love them any less.
i don't love their music any less.
i am just not loving them being in an advertisement.
that's all.

 

[bsp77]

Some people need to get off their high horse and just enjoy the music. Why would anyone stop being a fan because of a commercial? I don't always like hearing songs by The Beatles, The Stones and The Who in all kinds of commercials. But do I think less of the bands? Of course not.

It also helps when the commercial is unbelievably cool, like the itunes one is.

 

[teebee]

Having thought about it for a little more, I guess it all boils down to the upcoming album itself. If it's truly as good as advertised, it won't matter that U2 is using Apple to shill Vertigo.

But if there's that ATYCLB hint of trying to be all things to all people, I'm afraid U2 will drop down my personal best band list.

I'm optimistic the new one will be better than the last one, but part of me thinks that U2 has painted itself into a corner creatively and that with the new album, U2 will have permanently lost the subtlety I love them for. The commercial adds to, rather than minimizes, that worry.

 

[East 17]

First off, while I agree reasonable people can differ, I don't think this ad is "nowhere near" a sellout. I mean for #%&#'s sake, the dancers are literally wearing their iPods on their sleeves, and it's even more blatant in the full video. What if those were Coke cans? Or deordorant sticks? Even diehard fans would scream bloody murder.

Second, who doesn't consider Bob Dylan a sellout after they used "The Times They Are a-Changin" in a Bank of Toronto commercial? And, please, Led Zep for Cadillac? Moby licensing his entire album for advertisers? Shameless.

Third, what on earth does Apple's involvement with music have anything to do with this? It's not about relevance, it's about $$$. All it takes is one blockbuster ad campaign, and the boys might get it through their heads that they can clean up the next time around. 2007 comes, and we get a more "marketable" U2. THAT's what I mean by "sell-out." It's not so much the ad itself as it is the ad as a symptom of a larger disease.

But, that said, let's be fair: "Vertigo" isn't exactly Dylan, so it's not like they're violating the spirit of the song as they would if, say, WTSHNN were in a car ad.

 

[kobayashi]

hate to break it you folks but U2 is a brand and the music their product.

edited because i suck. but ive already been quoted so you all know how i suck.

 

[bratty_cat]

hate to break it you folks but the U2 is a brand and the music their product.

well said

 

[tkramer]

I'm gonna punch the next pie in the sky twit who thinks this is selling out. I even hate the word. The most tired expression in music. U2 charges us 45.00-130.00 to see them. That's SELLING. So if any one of you idiots have ever bought an album or a ticket then your argument sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

I'm going somewhere else.

Meet me in the 2005 tour section, we're drawing stages...



edit: this was kinda harsh, I understand some are not ok with it. I just don't think most are really thinking this through. U2 is the biggest band on earth. I know people who would call U2 sellouts just because they sell a lot of albums. So many of these arguments just don't make sense. Like it's been said, U2 is a brand, music is their product. I wonder if some of you are the same people who couldn't wait to see the 17 million dollar ad campaign, cause this is most certainly part of it.

 

[boosterjuice]

iTunes ad = NO SELL OUT!!!


They are merely supporting their single and upcoming album. When the album is released, expect there to be HMV commercials to promote the sale of album. Is that selling? NO!!! Same with the iTunes ad. U2 is advertising an option for people to purchase the single---through iTunes.

 

[Jim]

well said

Of course, but you say it like it's deceitful or conflicting with what U2 should be? As far as I can see being a sucessful brand is part of being a great band.. Ultimately if the music is shit, I and most people would just walk away regardless.

 

[teebee]

Well, as a longtime marketing director with consumer product experience, it's not as cut and dried as some of you would make it out to be.

This commercial is an example of "cross-promotion" meaning Apple and U2 are both advertising themselves within the context of a single commercial.

U2 did not pay for this ad, Apple did. Hence, U2 is receiving monetary benefit by allowing their song to be part of a TV commercial. Maybe they didn't get paid (though I bet they did) but at the very least it saved them primetime commercial expenses. It's not the same as U2 paying for ad time/space on the national networks to promote their song. They're being marketed by Apple as an example of what's available at the iTunes Music Store.

So although to U2 fans, it looks like U2 is plugging their new song, I'd venture that, to most people, it comes off as an iPod/iTunes ad.

U2 is a brand, for sure. But in their attempt to remain the biggest band in the world, they've lately looked for ways to bring that brand to the largest number of people possible. Best-ofs, incessant exposure, an album (ATYCLB) that aggressively went after the American radio-listening market, and now a TV ad.

Believe what you want, but this kind of opportunism almost always occurs at the expense of the music. I'm sorry, but it's true. The same opportunism that acts like Britney Spears, Aerosmith, NSYNC (and on and on) routinely display.

It may not be selling out, but it's in bed with selling out. To argue otherwise makes little sense, to me.

 

[tkramer]

Well, as a longtime marketing director with consumer product experience, it's not as cut and dried as some of you would make it out to be.

This commercial is an example of "cross-promotion" meaning Apple and U2 are both advertising themselves within the context of a single commercial.

U2 did not pay for this ad, Apple did. Hence, U2 is receiving monetary benefit by allowing their song to be part of a TV commercial. Maybe they didn't get paid (though I bet they did) but at the very least it saved them primetime commercial expenses. It's not the same as U2 paying for ad time/space on the national networks to promote their song. They're being marketed by Apple as an example of what's available at the iTunes Music Store.

So although to U2 fans, it looks like U2 is plugging their new song, I'd venture that, to most people, it comes off as an iPod/iTunes ad.

U2 is a brand, for sure. But in their attempt to remain the biggest band in the world, they've lately looked for ways to bring that brand to the largest number of people possible. Best-ofs, incessant exposure, an album (ATYCLB) that aggressively went after the American radio-listening market, and now a TV ad.

Believe what you want, but this kind of opportunism almost always occurs at the expense of the music. I'm sorry, but it's true. The same opportunism that acts like Britney Spears, Aerosmith, NSYNC (and on and on) routinely display.

It may not be selling out, but it's in bed with selling out. To argue otherwise makes little sense, to me.

A marketing director. My nemesis!!! Art director! Run Buddy!!!
(me being a creative director, who only cares about selling my cool print ad that doesn't have a big enough coke logo on it.)

You make some good points, but I just can't get over the term selling out and the way folks toss it around. Maybe that's my problem. We can argue whether it's a GOOD BIZ move by the band, because believe me I'll puke the moment I see Dirty Day in a Tampax ad. But what really is the difference between this and the 7 CD? And how does U2 being in a kick butt MUSIC commercial for THEIR SONG hurt them? Certainly it's less than a 130.00 ticket. Certainly less than a superbowl halftime show. This spot is a perfect move for them.

The difference between U2 and britney spears is that I heard Brit trying to sell me her latest perfume yesterday on the radio. Why? because it doesn't matter to her handlers if she sells things that don't have anything to do with her product, which is music (sort of). U2 would never do that. They sell music. But they DO sell it. All bands that make a living at it SELL their music. This ad spends 90% of its time saying: Hey it's U2! Go buy their new tune!!! So every band who ever charged 5.00 at the door IS technically a "sellout". The term is overused, meaningless, and, most importantly, incorrectly used 9 out of 10 times.

Have A Beautiful Day.

PS. The print ad joke was only a joke. Most marketing folks want only to sell my print ads to the client. Any marketing directors hurt in the making of this post should call me and threaten to sue at once.

 

[biff]

Excellent post, tkramer!

 

[U2girl]

I also don't see the whole panic - it's not like we're talking about Pearl Jam or Radiohead who deliberately don't speak to reporters, use promotion, make videos (PJ)...this is U2 who always WANTED attention and was amitious to get new fans - by going to places with the expensive tours, playing awards shows (way before ATYCLB), having billboards, media coverage, writing movie songs...

I find the idea that a rock band should get away from popularity and success bizzare. It's not just music, it's a business too.

(technically any band that gets a record deal and sells an album is a sell-out, judging by some posts here)

 

[East 17]

Frankly, the argument that the word "sellout" is overused is, well, itself pretty overused. Sure, "sellout" loses all meaning when you're talking about Aerosmith, boy bands, etc. But I have a hunch that there's an integrity to U2's music that people in this forum like, nay love. So, in U2's case, violating that integrity goes to the core of why they're so popular.

I think I made clear that selling lots of albums, setting high ticket prices, being generally popular, even appearing in ads, is not in and of itself what I object to. That's the insufferable Indie definition of sellout, and it applies to just about every band who's good enough to get signed. Me, I don't give a rat's ass that U2 like publicity, or that Radiohead shun it. It doesn't alter my response to their music one bit.

What concerns me, and I say "concerns" because I haven't heard the latest album yet, is that though I liked ATYCLB, I thought in some places the music was watered down for a mass audience. Hey, it's U2. They could record pig scatology and I would still buy it. But I've seen too many good bands make decisions that are more than a little swayed by marketing. Case in point: the new REM album.

For the record, I don't think any one song, or ad, or tour, makes you a "sellout" by my definition. I think "sellout" is just a certain state of mind toward song writing, and you'll forgive me if I get a bit nervous that my favorite band may be showing signs of embracing that state.

 

[Teta040]

I am sure there are those of you on here who are old enough to remember the Beatles marketing blitz when they came to America in '64? I wasn't but have read a lot about it. There was EVERY type of commerical product with the Beatles on it you can imagine, and probably some you'd rather not. There was even, so I have read, Beatlenut Ice Cream.

Now, that's OK for the sweet, pappy "Love me Do." But can you imagine "A Day IN The Life" being in a TV commerical? Thank God the boys saw a way to scare off the corporate shills.

Look: Some people think from what I posted yesterday that I'm on the verge of ceasing my fanship. I'm not. Like I hammered to death 16 times in that boringly long post, I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with U2 promoting a music-based product. And I didn't bat an eyelash when VHI was on the tix. What I said was if it was for anything else, like food, clothes, or cars. That's a BIG difference, becuase it would signal to me that U2 not longer care about the thematic integrity of the music.

Remember Bob Seger's "Like A Rock"? I listened to that for years before it was on a car commerical. The lyrics paint a tale of a clean young man, confident in his place in life and rejoicing at his good reputation. But years later, all I could think of whewn I heard the song was a picture of a Ford truck popping into my head. Remember that somg that played on the end of the Red Rocks video? That haunting Irish thing? The one that according to Bono almost caused him to drive off the road the first time he heard it? I can't even remember the name of the darned thing niow, b/c all I can think of is the word "Farfetnugen" (sp)--the German van commercial, from the late 80's.

That's what I mean. Come to think of it, Bob Seger disppeared pretty much as recording artist within 3 yrs of that commercial going out. The difference between music and any other consumer product is that music is not like Coke or clothes or cars. It takes a long time to produce, sometimes with great anguish, and it meant to be enjoyed forever. A song only comes out once. Each is different. Whereas Coke, Fast food, perfume, and clothes are meant to be used up quickly, are endlessly reproduced off an assembly line, and tossed away without much thought, to make room for more. And all are exactly thr\e same. That is the values those corporations preach. That's a huge philosophical difference. And that's NOT what U2 are about.

Destiny's Child songs are not meant to be mindlessly consumed like McDonald's french fries. Sorry. I took them srriously.I'm heartbroken over them and I wonder what Bono thinks. He is such a fan.

I have read a lot about the precarious finaces in today's industry and how hard it is for artists to break into stardowm. But this was not their first album. They were an established artist. They weren't Jet.

 

[teebee]

Frankly, the argument that the word "sellout" is overused is, well, itself pretty overused. Sure, "sellout" loses all meaning when you're talking about Aerosmith, boy bands, etc. But I have a hunch that there's an integrity to U2's music that people in this forum like, nay love. So, in U2's case, violating that integrity goes to the core of why they're so popular.

I think I made clear that selling lots of albums, setting high ticket prices, being generally popular, even appearing in ads, is not in and of itself what I object to. That's the insufferable Indie definition of sellout, and it applies to just about every band who's good enough to get signed. Me, I don't give a rat's ass that U2 like publicity, or that Radiohead shun it. It doesn't alter my response to their music one bit.

What concerns me, and I say "concerns" because I haven't heard the latest album yet, is that though I liked ATYCLB, I thought in some places the music was watered down for a mass audience. Hey, it's U2. They could record pig scatology and I would still buy it. But I've seen too many good bands make decisions that are more than a little swayed by marketing. Case in point: the new REM album.

For the record, I don't think any one song, or ad, or tour, makes you a "sellout" by my definition. I think "sellout" is just a certain state of mind toward song writing, and you'll forgive me if I get a bit nervous that my favorite band may be showing signs of embracing that state.

This post sums up EXACTLY what I was trying to say. As a marketing person, I am embarrassed I couldn't figure out how to say this myself!

 

[tkramer]

QUOTE:
What concerns me, and I say "concerns" because I haven't heard the latest album yet, is that though I liked ATYCLB, I thought in some places the music was watered down for a mass audience. Hey, it's U2. They could record pig scatology and I would still buy it. But I've seen too many good bands make decisions that are more than a little swayed by marketing. Case in point: the new REM album.
---------------------------------


Well, I pretty much agree with the last couple of posts but I thought we were talking about the i-tunes ad and whether or not it was a bad idea?

I think this particular subject is important enough to get its own thread.
I think you should start it with your post.

 

[doctorwho]

That said, I will give them the benfit of the doubt this time, but I am now officially putting the band on probation, like I did after Pop. One more ad for ANY OTHER type of product, and I am gone from the U2 Family. Out. Fintito. Period. I'd rather Bono divorced Ali and became a smackhead, than see any more of these, for anything else. I don't care if it's 20 yrs from now. And we had damned well not see any Apple logos on the tix etc. My patience will only go so far. They have not crossed the line yet, in my book, but this is a heads up.

I know I'm being selective in my quoting (of your post), but I found this paragraph very offensive.

For 25 years, U2 have refused commercial endorsement for tours. They have not had their songs tied up in ads (like we see for the Stones, the Cars, Dylan, Iggie Pop, Lenny Kravitz, etc.). And they are one of the most charity-oriented group of people I've seen, especially so when you realize they are rock stars.

Now they use their song to promote iTunes - a way for fans to LEGALLY download songs. Given the RIAA lawsuits, given that it's illegal and given that it's considered stealing, we should not be downloading songs from file-sharing programs. We all have - and for years, I said that the RIAA should stop fighting this and find a way to profit. They did - and iTunes is leading the way.

U2 is doing this promotion not for itself. As was eloquently pointed out, the song became #1 on iTunes on its own merit. It became a Hot 100 hit because of its quality. U2 is using their fame to promote iTunes because this is an excellent way for fans to LEGALLY download music. More important, it's a way for small, new artists to get some much needed funds for their work. U2 and their label can afford some file-sharing. A small label or new artist cannot.

So please stop telling us how, after 25 years of charity and exemplary behavior, you are now going to "cut off" U2. If that's how you feel - fine, find another artist to praise. But be warned, most artists DO accept commercial endorsements, often from the very start. And most aren't out there busting their butts trying to get AIDS medicine to Africa or supporting Nelson Mandela.

 

[popacrobat]

I know I'm being selective in my quoting (of your post), but I found this paragraph very offensive.

For 25 years, U2 have refused commercial endorsement for tours. They have not had their songs tied up in ads (like we see for the Stones, the Cars, Dylan, Iggie Pop, Lenny Kravitz, etc.). And they are one of the most charity-oriented group of people I've seen, especially so when you realize they are rock stars.

Now they use their song to promote iTunes - a way for fans to LEGALLY download songs. Given the RIAA lawsuits, given that it's illegal and given that it's considered stealing, we should not be downloading songs from file-sharing programs. We all have - and for years, I said that the RIAA should stop fighting this and find a way to profit. They did - and iTunes is leading the way.

U2 is doing this promotion not for itself. As was eloquently pointed out, the song became #1 on iTunes on its own merit. It became a Hot 100 hit because of its quality. U2 is using their fame to promote iTunes because this is an excellent way for fans to LEGALLY download music. More important, it's a way for small, new artists to get some much needed funds for their work. U2 and their label can afford some file-sharing. A small label or new artist cannot.

So please stop telling us how, after 25 years of charity and exemplary behavior, you are now going to "cut off" U2. If that's how you feel - fine, find another artist to praise. But be warned, most artists DO accept commercial endorsements, often from the very start. And most aren't out there busting their butts trying to get AIDS medicine to Africa or supporting Nelson Mandela.

 

[East 17]

QUOTE:

Well, I pretty much agree with the last couple of posts but I thought we were talking about the i-tunes ad and whether or not it was a bad idea?

Sorry, I was trying to link my uneasiness over some parts of ATYCLB with their latest move. In other words, if the same band that thought is was a good idea to appear in an Apple commercial also wrote HTDAAB, I'm a little worried it will be more of the same, or worse.

But if you mean "good idea" in terms of a business decision... I think it could be brilliant, so long as they don't abandon the fans they already have. That's disatrous for business.

 

[doctorwho]

To continue...

This whole "sell-out" topic has been raised many times, and it really ticks me off.

In 1988/89, U2 were charging about $40 for tickets for shows in Ireland. And I heard DJ's complaining that this price was too high as most of U2's fans were college students and couldn't afford it. Amazing that these students find $ for beer and parties and movies and chips and... but $40 is "too much" for a concert.

In 1992, U2 were accused of "selling out" because of ZOO TV and how they "embraced" this rock star image. Of course, no one mentioned that tickets for that show were $25-35. I know because I have ticket stubs to prove it. A mere $25 - with NO sponsors - for a concert ticket.

Come 1997, fans screamed with the prices went to around $57.50 for the better seats during the PopMart tour. Never mind that U2 still had $35 tickets on sale for that tour. Never mind that in that same year, artists like the Bee Gees were charging $300 (!) for their tickets. Never mind that once again U2 had no sponsors. The fact is, ticket prices increase and fans were furious.

In 2001, tickets hit $130. But time and time again, I read people writing how 40% or more of the tickets were that price. This is incorrect. About 70% of the tickets sold were $85 or less. And as we all know, the best tickets were a mere $45! Think about that - the equivalent to front row seats being just $45, only $10 more than what U2 charged in 1992! But that's not what fans saw - they saw the $130 tickets and were outraged. Never mind that in Madonna's recent tour, the LOWEST ticket prices are $100 (for nosebleed seats). Never mind that once again U2 didn't have sponsorship. And never mind that those $130 tickets were able to balance out the $45 tickets. In other words, those of you with $45 tickets should thank those who paid $130.

U2 have interacted with companies over the years. Larry did a Harley commercial. U2 have appeared on countless magazine covers (which, of course, help sell those magazines). U2 have had special, short-term deals with Best Buy and Target. U2 have always interacted with MTV and VH-1 (and in fact, their tickets always say "presented by MTV and VH-1).

So at what point is it "selling out"? And why would U2 sell out now? They have the $$, they don't need more. And, haven't U2 "sold out" from the very start by making their music available for purchase?

You know, if U2 get a commercial sponsor this tour, it might help keep their ticket prices DOWN! Ever think of this? The high cost of touring may drive prices up again. But if U2 actually get a sponsor, instead of charging $150 for a ticket, maybe their top prices might only be $100. Maybe they could still offer $45 tickets.

Of course, all you naysayers won't realize this. You won't see how ticket prices are low because of this sponsorship. All you'll see is that U2 have a sponsor - and you'll be outraged.

But of course, it's a no-win situation. If U2 doesn't take a sponsor and has to charge more for tickets, all of you naysayers will be out in droves again complaining about the high ticket prices and how U2 *clearly* must have sold out this time.

 

[UKTan]

To continue...

This whole "sell-out" topic has been raised many times, and it really ticks me off.

In 1988/89, U2 were charging about $40 for tickets for shows in Ireland. And I heard DJ's complaining that this price was too high as most of U2's fans were college students and couldn't afford it. Amazing that these students find $ for beer and parties and movies and chips and... but $40 is "too much" for a concert.

In 1992, U2 were accused of "selling out" because of ZOO TV and how they "embraced" this rock star image. Of course, no one mentioned that tickets for that show were $25-35. I know because I have ticket stubs to prove it. A mere $25 - with NO sponsors - for a concert ticket.

Come 1997, fans screamed with the prices went to around $57.50 for the better seats during the PopMart tour. Never mind that U2 still had $35 tickets on sale for that tour. Never mind that in that same year, artists like the Bee Gees were charging $300 (!) for their tickets. Never mind that once again U2 had no sponsors. The fact is, ticket prices increase and fans were furious.

In 2001, tickets hit $130. But time and time again, I read people writing how 40% or more of the tickets were that price. This is incorrect. About 70% of the tickets sold were $85 or less. And as we all know, the best tickets were a mere $45! Think about that - the equivalent to front row seats being just $45, only $10 more than what U2 charged in 1992! But that's not what fans saw - they saw the $130 tickets and were outraged. Never mind that in Madonna's recent tour, the LOWEST ticket prices are $100 (for nosebleed seats). Never mind that once again U2 didn't have sponsorship. And never mind that those $130 tickets were able to balance out the $45 tickets. In other words, those of you with $45 tickets should thank those who paid $130.

U2 have interacted with companies over the years. Larry did a Harley commercial. U2 have appeared on countless magazine covers (which, of course, help sell those magazines). U2 have had special, short-term deals with Best Buy and Target. U2 have always interacted with MTV and VH-1 (and in fact, their tickets always say "presented by MTV and VH-1).

So at what point is it "selling out"? And why would U2 sell out now? They have the $$, they don't need more. And, haven't U2 "sold out" from the very start by making their music available for purchase?

You know, if U2 get a commercial sponsor this tour, it might help keep their ticket prices DOWN! Ever think of this? The high cost of touring may drive prices up again. But if U2 actually get a sponsor, instead of charging $150 for a ticket, maybe their top prices might only be $100. Maybe they could still offer $45 tickets.

Of course, all you naysayers won't realize this. You won't see how ticket prices are low because of this sponsorship. All you'll see is that U2 have a sponsor - and you'll be outraged.

But of course, it's a no-win situation. If U2 doesn't take a sponsor and has to charge more for tickets, all of you naysayers will be out in droves again complaining about the high ticket prices and how U2 *clearly* must have sold out this time.

Excellent post and, unfortunately, so true

 

[Shaizari]

Ibid - above.

 

[zoopop]

From my understanding I don't see how U2 sold out because isn't U2 the one paying Itunes (Apple) to advertise their new single on for sale on Itunes. I'm sure this ad is part of the 17 million is using to promote their album.

 

[doctorwho]

I just read this on Billboard.com:

While no details are finalized, industry talk is heating up that Barbra Streisand and Neil Diamond will tour together on a co-headlining bill in 2005. If the pair does indeed hit the road, ticket prices could be the highest the industry has yet seen. One source tells Billboard the guarantee for the tour (the amount the acts receive regardless of tickets sold) is in the range of $3.5 million per show.

If so, conservative estimates put ticket prices at $300-$400 on the low end for the show to break even, including production costs. Some observers predict VIP tickets packages could go for as high as $3,000 or more.

While Streisand and Diamond are indeed legends, I would argue that U2 are just as legendary, even if their careers haven't been as long. Furthermore, I think U2 have far more influence on today's new artists than Diamond or Streisand. Yet, would U2 ever dream of charging $300+ for a ticket?