Something To Discuss

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Mr. Millennium

Acrobat
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
339
I was thinking about this a few minutes ago and I was interested in getting everybody's opinions on this. With European tickets sales for 2010 well underway and with US sales set to begin soon, most, if not all, of the shows announced for 2010 will probably be sold out by the end of November. And if they’re not, then will probably be pretty close to it.

My question is what happens if SOA is released in the spring of 2010 and turns out to be successful? It will obviously generate a strong interest in U2. Yet, the shows for the upcoming summer will already be sold out or very close to it. Will they add more shows and possibly more legs? Will ticket prices on Stubhub or whatever sky rocket? Essentially, how would U2 cope with a demand that cannot be handled because the shows went on sale months ago?

Also, one thing I don’t want this topic to get into is whether or not SOA will sell well or if it will even be released at all. I know a lot of people will try to take the approach that SOA has been described by the band as mellow songs so there’s no way it will be a success. If that’s what you believe that’s fine, but for discussion’s sake, I would like to see people respond with the assumption that SOA is really released in the spring and it sells better and has a better reception than NLOTH.
 
Interesting thougts. But I don't think they'll give SOA a campaing as big as they did for NLOTH. So SOA will not be as 'succesfull' as NLOTH.

Just a guess. I don't care really, I'll be happy IF they record SOA.
 
I think they have released these dates so early as insurance incase SOA fails (either on release or on the possibility it never goes on sale). If they released the dates after SOA fails (for talks sake) then the ticket sales will be slow. If they put the tickets on sale on the back of the broadcast shown to the world then tickets are likely to sell more swiftly.
 
I don't think U2 needs any album to get good ticket sales for concerts now. They have the reputation for putting on a good live show, and if they keep that reputation up, they will continue to have sold out concerts.
 
I don't think U2 needs any album to get good ticket sales for concerts now. They have the reputation for putting on a good live show, and if they keep that reputation up, they will continue to have sold out concerts.

U2 has a great live reputation but they are not able to tour and sell out markets all over country or they would be doing more cities then what they have announced.

As we have seen they have manipulated the tickets sold and capacity this leg of tour to create the feel that tickets are hard to get etc.... (every show sold out) LOL>> I wish I had bean counters like that

They are making fans travel hundreds of miles to see a show. So beside cost of ticket you have gas hotel food etc. What if next summer gas is 4 bucks a gallon.

When you create a business model to limit touring to every 4 years and only put out an album every four years it helps create a demand for seeing them live.

Paul M is the master of this craft and deservingly is the 5th and should be highest paid member of band.

The Beatles release 10 albums in less then 10 years...
U2 12 in 30 years..... is it quality vs quantity?:shifty:
 
I don't believe U2 would add extra legs or shows if SOA happens to be successful. I think they view SOA like another Zooropa - an "in between" record that won't merit its own tour. In fact, I don't think it's a given that there will be singles released from SOA, making it even "smaller" than Zooropa, more like another Passengers.

Correct me if I'm wrong (like I had to say that!)... but although the ZooTV tour was renamed Zooropa and new songs worked into the setlist, I don't believe the touring plan was altered as a result of the new record. And even if it was, the boys are 17 years older, with families, and it's quite clear they don't want to play as many shows. And they would certainly never undertake a tour of that length again.

My take is that when 360 2010 wraps next fall, that will be it for another four years.
 
U2 has a great live reputation but they are not able to tour and sell out markets all over country or they would be doing more cities then what they have announced.

As we have seen they have manipulated the tickets sold and capacity this leg of tour to create the feel that tickets are hard to get etc.... (every show sold out) LOL>> I wish I had bean counters like that

They are making fans travel hundreds of miles to see a show. So beside cost of ticket you have gas hotel food etc. What if next summer gas is 4 bucks a gallon.

When you create a business model to limit touring to every 4 years and only put out an album every four years it helps create a demand for seeing them live.

Paul M is the master of this craft and deservingly is the 5th and should be highest paid member of band.

The Beatles release 10 albums in less then 10 years...
U2 12 in 30 years..... is it quality vs quantity?:shifty:

Are you going to complain about the same thing in every thread you post in? I think you've made it clear, you think U2 has manipulated the numbers.
How many different threads do you need to post this in?
 
I think they've left it open to add dates here and there, certain markets may get a second show, but that's about it...
I seriously doubt it. If they add any second shows to markets, they'll be announced later this year. They're not going to announce any second shows after a potential SOA release next spring.
 
Back
Top Bottom