Biggest Grossing Tours Of All Time

[Maoilbheannacht]

Again, what's the point, when you'll just find a way to spin it, like you ALWAYS DO.

Its an opportunity for you to lend some credibility to your claims. Of course, if your claims are exclusively original and no one in the industry agrees with you, then your not going to find any sources to back you up.

Madonna toured in 1985, 1987, 1990 and 1993. She then didn't tour again until 2001. Figure it out, genius. It's beyond obvious.

Did Madonna say at any time between 1993 and 1997 that she had no plans to tour until 2001? If you can find a source which confirms that she did, then you might have a point, if not then you have to admit that she was still considered an active artist at that point.

Just because there is no promoter statement we can find to state Madonna is a larger draw than U2, doesn't necessarily mean she isn't. The numbers don't lie.

The numbers don't lie, but your formula's and idea's about them are very questionable and so far are not supported by any sources.

It's not "my interpretation" and the formulas in question aren't ones "I have created". This is text book stuff.

Well, then it should be rather easy for you to point to a source that confirms these things.

Well, of course...because U2 have PLAYED MORE SHOWS than Madonna has per tour. And because U2 HAVE DONE RETURN ENGAGEMENTS on their most recent tours - MADONNA HASN'T.

Another way of looking at it is that Madonna has severely underplayed the global tour market when compared to U2 when compare their careers which started roughly at the same time, U2's first album release was in 1980, Madonna's first album release was in 1983.

Because Madonna has so underplayed the market for most of her career, her smaller tours have inflated gross figures.

U2 has been playing shows in Switzerland since 1987, Madonna just played there for the first time a few months ago.

 

[mosquito]

I know that the Michael jackson 1997 European tour boxscores were published on Billboard magazine between july and september of 1997,but i can´t find those issues.

 

[Moggio]

Define seperate? Are you saying they are seperate because they are individual days, weeks, months? If the November shows on November 20-21 were on October 20 and 21, would you actually consider that to be a seperate return date?

Of course.

Every time you used the fact that U2 underplayed the market, and that they could have grossed 10% to 20% more, you were talking about the tour in general. You never stated that it only applied to certain markets.New York City was one of the largest markets of the tour, so naturally it would apply there.

At that point in time, U2 did not underplay the market. And for the second time now, I was utilizing the best case scenario. STOP MISQUOTING ME.

Well than how can you consider Fresno to be virtually the same market as Oakland California? Fresno is about a 3 hour drive from Oakland while San Diego is only a 2 hour drive from San Diego.

I'm referring to the fact that simply because Madonna didn't play Fresno in 2004 and did in 2006, that that was the reason why her gross was HIGHER in the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area in 2004 compared to 2006 - and hence demand is adjusted when something like that happens. And for example, Madonna didn't play San Diego in 2006 but is this year - and hence her LA gross will be the same or lower this year than compared to 2006...

Get it?

 

[Moggio]

Anyone thats at least taken economics 101 realizes that what many consider to be the greatest global financial crises since the 1930s could indeed impact nearly any type of business in 2009.

Give me a break. It won't come to that. And that's not what I'm saying, anyways. My point was that you'll use ANY excuse in the book to make U2 look more popular than they really are. And it's been going on for YEARS.

But lets leave that out for a second and take a look at your idea that U2 underplayed the market in 2005 by 10% to 20%. U2 grossed $138 million dollars in 2005 in the US/Canadian market. If we add 20% because they underplayed the market, we get $165.5 million for 2005. But, were talking about a tour in 2009, so we need to adjust for inflation.

STOP MISQUOTING ME. That's not what I said.

$165 million dollars in 2005 will probably be about $185 million dollars in 2009. If U2 charge an average of $100 dollars a ticket in 2009, this suggest they will play to 1,850,000 people in USA/Canada. If they do that with 42 stadium shows, that comes out to an average of about 44,000 people per night. U2 could repeat the Outside Broadcast ZOO TV TOUR of the USA and Canada in 2009 if they are charging an average of $100 dollars a ticket.

Again, this all derived for using YOUR FORMULA's and YOUR IDEA's.

So, even by your rules, U2 could repeat the stadium part of their North American tour from ZOO TV.

Wrong.

Your gross estimations are too high. It would be lower than that. But let's take the accurate parts from the above and look at it closer:

U2's North American average price next year won't be $100. It was just over $97 on the Vertigo tour in 2005. Their average gross per night on this continent in 2005 was around $1.8 million. By next year, since U2 will have sold 10-15% more albums since 2005 and since inflation will have gone up 11-12%, it means that $138 million will turn into roughly $170 million, if they basically play the same amount of shows. This means next year, their average attendance would still be around 18,000 fans per night, with a per night gross of around $2.2 million (it may be slightly higher depending on how many stadium shows they schedule here, if any). And their average price will turn out to be roughly $120.

So, from that, if they did a full stadium tour, the average attendance you quoted of 44,000 from 42 stadium shows would be way off, since, apart from other factors, there wouldn't be any return engagements and hence the $170 million gross would be more like $150 million. And even though their average gross would be nearly $3.6 million per night, there would be less than 30,000 fans per night (or around 33,000 fans per night, if prices only go up with inflation from 2005)...and even less than that if they played more shows here. So, we'd obviously be looking at PopMart-type attendance...

 

[Moggio]

Sorry, but since you did not make that distinction on the UKMIX FORUM, your automatically applying it to ALL artist, especially big artist like
U2 and the Rolling Stones since that is who we were discussing.

You must've been misinterpreting what I was talking about.

One can't really say that Madonna has ever been guilty of overplaying markets when you look at her full tour history.

But we're not looking at that, when judging current demand. We're looking at her most recent tours. And she's been on the road almost every other year since 2001. It can change things...

She is playing Vancouver Canada for the first time ever on this tour! Her shows in Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Montenegro, were also first! When you have never played a particular market before and you have had a big career like Madonna, your gross is naturally going to be inflated by that factor.

Not necessarily. The fact is, is that Madonna has outgrossed U2 in most markets both have comparably played and is obviously a larger grossing artist than U2 is overall and worldwide. And when you try discredit that by stating ridiculous reasons as to how or why she has grossed more than U2 and how that means U2 still is a larger draw than she is, overall, doesn't do anything to support your claims in this discussion. You can spin it any way you want. My point still stands. The numbers don't lie.

So this is another major issue that your completely overlooking when comparing Madonna to U2.

Nope. And again, in this case, it doesn't really matter how or why. She's more popular than U2. And that's that.

 

[Moggio]

Its an opportunity for you to lend some credibility to your claims. Of course, if your claims are exclusively original and no one in the industry agrees with you, then your not going to find any sources to back you up.

Credibility? Like I said, I've studied this business forever. What exactly do you want? Certificates? Licenses? I think anyone reading this thread knows that I know what I'm talking about and can see the obvious logic I'm posting. I'm not saying I know it all because I don't and I have been wrong before. But come one, for you to deny the bulk of what I'm stating here, you'd have to deny that return engagements don't detract from overall gross when viewing the actual and true amount of attendance and gross there really is for an artist(s) per tour, and that there isn't such thing as shifting of demand for a centralized market, when nearby markets don't get hit, etc.

And anyways, a few years back, we already had similar discussions. And you even said that you thought the return engagement percentages were HIGHER than compared to what I said. Remember?

Can anyone say, hypocrite?

Did Madonna say at any time between 1993 and 1997 that she had no plans to tour until 2001? If you can find a source which confirms that she did, then you might have a point, if not then you have to admit that she was still considered an active artist at that point.

It's BEYOND OBVIOUS. No touring for nearly EIGHT years for a MAJOR star like Madonna. Come on...

And again, just because there is no an actual statement, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

The numbers don't lie, but your formula's and idea's about them are very questionable and so far are not supported by any sources.

Again, what exactly do you want? Certificates? Licenses? I've taken the time to explicitly go over all of this with you. I don't have to be doing this. And it's all logical, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, then it should be rather easy for you to point to a source that confirms these things.

No, it wouldn't, actually. Look, promoters don't hold courses for the public on how to predict concert demand. It comes through YEARS of time and experience.

Another way of looking at it is that Madonna has severely underplayed the global tour market when compared to U2 when compare their careers which started roughly at the same time, U2's first album release was in 1980, Madonna's first album release was in 1983.

Because Madonna has so underplayed the market for most of her career, her smaller tours have inflated gross figures.

U2 has been playing shows in Switzerland since 1987, Madonna just played there for the first time a few months ago.

Again, it doesn't really matter in this case as to how and why. The stats don't lie when comparing markets they've both played in - which show Madonna is the larger draw. And it's beyond obvious that she's more popular than U2 is, overall and worldwide.

Give it a rest, already.

 

[Moggio]

Do you know how much we could learn from each other if you would just admit to certain things?

Seriously.

Because, for starters, I have the near entire boxscore listings for The Police's 2007-2008 30th Anniversary tour. And I'd like to share them with you in the near future...

 

[genesis199125]

i wonder how much profit U2 makes from their tours? Even though take in hundreds of millions of dollars from ticket sales, the cost of the tour must be incredibly high, and whatnot.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Of course.

Billboard Boxscore considers Bruce Springsteen's 10 shows at Giants Stadium in July and August of 2003 to be one set of dates, despite the fact that they have a 3 week gap.

At that point in time, U2 did not underplay the market. And for the second time now, I was utilizing the best case scenario. STOP MISQUOTING ME.

In NONE of your qoutes about the 10-20% higher gross U2 could have achieved do you state that U2 "DID NOT UNDERPLAY" this market or that market.

You also never claim that the 10-20% was a best case scenario. You claim that level by which U2 could have grossed was somewhere between 10% and 20% higher than what they actually did.

Here are your qoutes:

Yes, U2 could've grossed more money than they've already grossed on their Vertigo tour (I'd say 10-20% more, based on the sales of their latest album, which would be around $450 million USD) but not more than what the Stones are going to wind up grossing once their A Bigger Bang tour ends next year.

Also, there wasn't/isn't "heavy" demand for additional U2 shows but I agree they could've played to 10-20% more fans based on the sales of their current album and if they charged the same amount of money they did last year.

U2 could not play to more than 10-20% more people in ANY market worldwide than they already have on their current tour due to the sales based on their latest studio album.

Once again, I agree that they underplayed worldwide but only by 10-20% based on the sales of their current album.

U2 ONLY underplayed by 10-20% for the one millionth time.

U2 could not play to more than 10-20% more people in ANY market worldwide than they already have on their current tour due to the sales based on their latest studio album.

Again, there is nothing in the qoutes above saying that 10% to 20% was only the best situation. You state that it was the situation. There is also no mention of specific markets being underplayed. You say in general that U2 did underplay on the Vertigo Tour. Such a general statement about the whole tour would obviously apply to one of the biggest markets on the tour.

I'm referring to the fact that simply because Madonna didn't play Fresno in 2004 and did in 2006, that that was the reason why her gross was HIGHER in the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area in 2004 compared to 2006 - and hence demand is adjusted when something like that happens. And for example, Madonna didn't play San Diego in 2006 but is this year - and hence her LA gross will be the same or lower this year than compared to 2006...

Get it?

Well, then you can't be claiming that Fresno is virtually the same market as San Fran but San Diego is not virtually the same market as Los Angeles.

If you take U2's spring results from 2005 for Los Angeles and San Diego, they are equal to Madonna's 2006 Los Angeles results. Add in U2's fall 2005 results for Los Angeles, and U2 is definitely ahead in the LA market.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Give me a break. It won't come to that. And that's not what I'm saying, anyways. My point was that you'll use ANY excuse in the book to make U2 look more popular than they really are. And it's been going on for YEARS.

The financial crises is serious but its economic impacts are not yet known. Such a level of uncertainty causes consumers to hold on to their money. We'll see what happens.


Your coming into a U2 fan website with nearly all your posts being attempts to make U2 look less popular than they really are. You'll use any excuse in the book to make U2 look less popular. You did this in 2004-2005, on the UKMIX FORUM, and now your back doing it again in of all places a U2 fan website. Just take a look at what you have posted so far in your latest visit here.

Wrong.

Your gross estimations are too high. It would be lower than that. But let's take the accurate parts from the above and look at it closer:

U2's North American average price next year won't be $100. It was just over $97 on the Vertigo tour in 2005. Their average gross per night on this continent in 2005 was around $1.8 million. By next year, since U2 will have sold 10-15% more albums since 2005 and since inflation will have gone up 11-12%, it means that $138 million will turn into roughly $170 million, if they basically play the same amount of shows. This means next year, their average attendance would still be around 18,000 fans per night, with a per night gross of around $2.2 million (it may be slightly higher depending on how many stadium shows they schedule here, if any). And their average price will turn out to be roughly $120.

So, from that, if they did a full stadium tour, the average attendance you quoted of 44,000 from 42 stadium shows would be way off, since, apart from other factors, there wouldn't be any return engagements and hence the $170 million gross would be more like $150 million. And even though their average gross would be nearly $3.6 million per night, there would be less than 30,000 fans per night (or around 33,000 fans per night, if prices only go up with inflation from 2005)...and even less than that if they played more shows here. So, we'd obviously be looking at PopMart-type attendance...

U2 had an average of 36,000 attendance on POPMART back in 1997.
U2 are more popular today and provided the economy does not drop as some are predicting, I think U2 could easily do a tour that averaged 44,000 per night from 42 stadium shows based on the results of the Vertigo Tour.

Take a look at these differences between POPMART and VERTIGO:

73. Atlanta November 26, 1997 Georgia Dome GROSS: $1,325,288 ATTENDANCE: 26,491

94, 95. Atlanta, Ga. : Nov. 18-19, 2005 : Philips Arena : GROSS $3,500,572 : ATTENDANCE 40,320 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2


In Atlanta, U2 gross nearly 3 times as much on the Vertigo Tour and attendance is increased by 50% at least. Notice that both shows for Vertigo Atlanta soldout all of the tickets made available on the initial day of sales. POPMART Atlanta by contrast was on sale for 6 months and only reached the 26,491 level. Clearly, stadium attendance for an Atlanta Vertigo show would have been at least 40,000 given the rapid rate of the two sellouts.


Here is another example:

68. Tampa November 10, 1997 Houlihan's Stadium GROSS: $893,865 ATTENDANCE: 17,776

93. Tampa, Fla. : Nov. 16, 2005 : St. Pete Times Forum : GROSS $1,825,243 : ATTENDANCE 19,354 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

U2's gross on VERTIGO is more than DOUBLE that of their 1997 POPMART show. In addition, despite the fact that Vertigo took place in an arena instead of a stadium, attendance for the Vertigo show is higher than the POPMART stadium show. Whats more, the Vertigo show soldout within hours, the POPMART show was on sale for 6 months.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

But we're not looking at that, when judging current demand. We're looking at her most recent tours. And she's been on the road almost every other year since 2001. It can change things...

The fact is, Madonna often skips many markets on her tours. But lets take a look at one market Madonna has never skipped on her four tours since 2001, Chicago.

Your claim is that if she does not hit $11 million dollars on the current tour, its because she has over saturated the market by playing to often.

But how often has Madonna actually played Chicago since 2001? 12 times, the same number of times U2 has played Chicago. Chicago is one of the few markets that she actually plays every tour as well, but even here, she has not played it more than U2 has so far in this decade, although next
U2 will over take her with shows in that market for the decade even though its one of the few markets that Madonna has always consistently played.

Below is a text book case of SPIN:

The fact is, is that Madonna has outgrossed U2 in most markets both have comparably played and is obviously a larger grossing artist than U2 is overall and worldwide. And when you try discredit that by stating ridiculous reasons as to how or why she has grossed more than U2 and how that means U2 still is a larger draw than she is, overall, doesn't do anything to support your claims in this discussion. You can spin it any way you want. My point still stands. The numbers don't lie.

Lets take a market like Switzerland. U2 played that market 10 times before it played its show there on the Vertigo Tour. Up until this year, Madonna had never played Switzerland. To see that Madonna had underplayed Switzerland in the past is a gross understatement.

Since you have always said that underplaying markets leads to bigger results the next time the artist comes around, you must acknowledge the fact that NEVER playing a market drastically inflates the results when the artist finally plays the market.

Below is a gross example of SPIN:

And again, in this case, it doesn't really matter how or why. She's more popular than U2. And that's that.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Credibility? Like I said, I've studied this business forever. What exactly do you want? Certificates? Licenses? I think anyone reading this thread knows that I know what I'm talking about and can see the obvious logic I'm posting. I'm not saying I know it all because I don't and I have been wrong before. But come one, for you to deny the bulk of what I'm stating here, you'd have to deny that return engagements don't detract from overall gross when viewing the actual and true amount of attendance and gross there really is for an artist(s) per tour, and that there isn't such thing as shifting of demand for a centralized market, when nearby markets don't get hit, etc.

And anyways, a few years back, we already had similar discussions. And you even said that you thought the return engagement percentages were HIGHER than compared to what I said. Remember?

Can anyone say, hypocrite?

You claimed that the formula's and idea's were actually not your own, so I simply asked where you got them from. If the formula's and idea's are not your own, who, what, or where did you get them from?

You used to say that return engagements were only 5% to 10% and yes I thought that it was higher. But my idea was simply an estimated guess. I admit that I don't really know if its for sure or not. I have not seen or done a test that would actually confirm it. I certainly cannot site anything or anyone else that has said the same thing, and would never claim that such an opinion is beyond debate.

It's BEYOND OBVIOUS. No touring for nearly EIGHT years for a MAJOR star like Madonna. Come on...

And again, just because there is no an actual statement, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Again, in 1996, Madonna had only been off the road for 2 to 3 years. Its not obvious at all.

Again, what exactly do you want? Certificates? Licenses? I've taken the time to explicitly go over all of this with you. I don't have to be doing this. And it's all logical, as far as I'm concerned.

I'd be happy to see any type of source you could provide. Just because idea's and theory's are logical does not mean they are actually correct or an actual example of reality.

No, it wouldn't, actually. Look, promoters don't hold courses for the public on how to predict concert demand. It comes through YEARS of time and experience.

How do you even know that promoters have the same view as you do on these formula's and idea's? There are a number of business magazines like Billboard, and Billboardbiz.com that talk about these types of things in various types of articles.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Do you know how much we could learn from each other if you would just admit to certain things?
...

I could easily say the same thing.

Because, for starters, I have the near entire boxscore listings for The Police's 2007-2008 30th Anniversary tour. And I'd like to share them with you in the near future...

I have nearly the entire tour as well. I'm only missing three shows, Mexico City, Lisbon, and the Denmark show.

 

[Moggio]

Billboard Boxscore considers Bruce Springsteen's 10 shows at Giants Stadium in July and August of 2003 to be one set of dates, despite the fact that they have a 3 week gap.

So what? And a very small percentage of fans returned to each of the following 9 shows and a slightly higher percentage of fans returned to the shows that were 3 weeks later. And a higher percentage of fans returned to the Shea Stadium shows in early October that year.

In NONE of your qoutes about the 10-20% higher gross U2 could have achieved do you state that U2 "DID NOT UNDERPLAY" this market or that market.

You also never claim that the 10-20% was a best case scenario. You claim that level by which U2 could have grossed was somewhere between 10% and 20% higher than what they actually did.

Here are your qoutes:

Again, there is nothing in the qoutes above saying that 10% to 20% was only the best situation. You state that it was the situation. There is also no mention of specific markets being underplayed. You say in general that U2 did underplay on the Vertigo Tour. Such a general statement about the whole tour would obviously apply to one of the biggest markets on the tour.

Wrong. When I said that, it was ONE YEAR after the second North American leg of the Vertigo tour ended. And hence a best case scenario of 10-20% more, ONE YEAR AFTER - which would never have really happened, obviously.

Well, then you can't be claiming that Fresno is virtually the same market as San Fran but San Diego is not virtually the same market as Los Angeles.

You still obviously don't understand what I'm getting at, do you? When one nearby market doesn't receive a show, a large percentage of fans will travel to the centralized market to see that show. But if another nearby market gets a show, a large percentage of fans doesn't need to travel to the centralized market because they're already getting their own show.

If you take U2's spring results from 2005 for Los Angeles and San Diego, they are equal to Madonna's 2006 Los Angeles results. Add in U2's fall 2005 results for Los Angeles, and U2 is definitely ahead in the LA market.

No, they're not. Minus returns, U2 did not gross over $10.5 million in the LA metro area in 2005. San Diego received their own shows, so there was no need for a somewhat large percentage of fans to travel to LA. And even if U2's entire San Diego gross is added to the LA metro area shows' gross, it still doesn't eclipse Madonna's LA metro area total of $10.5 million on her Confessions tour in 2006.

 

[Moggio]

Your coming into a U2 fan website with nearly all your posts being attempts to make U2 look less popular than they really are. You'll use any excuse in the book to make U2 look less popular. You did this in 2004-2005, on the UKMIX FORUM, and now your back doing it again in of all places a U2 fan website. Just take a look at what you have posted so far in your latest visit here.

U2 are NOT as popular than you think they are. The content of my posts are objective and realistic. Something that obvious escapes you...

U2 had an average of 36,000 attendance on POPMART back in 1997.
U2 are more popular today and provided the economy does not drop as some are predicting, I think U2 could easily do a tour that averaged 44,000 per night from 42 stadium shows based on the results of the Vertigo Tour.

Well, as I've shown you above...you're dreaming if you think that U2 could pull off a coast to coast North American STADIUM tour at the prices they're charging nowadays - which will be around $120 next year..

Take a look at these differences between POPMART and VERTIGO:

73. Atlanta November 26, 1997 Georgia Dome GROSS: $1,325,288 ATTENDANCE: 26,491

94, 95. Atlanta, Ga. : Nov. 18-19, 2005 : Philips Arena : GROSS $3,500,572 : ATTENDANCE 40,320 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

In Atlanta, U2 gross nearly 3 times as much on the Vertigo Tour and attendance is increased by 50% at least. Notice that both shows for Vertigo Atlanta soldout all of the tickets made available on the initial day of sales. POPMART Atlanta by contrast was on sale for 6 months and only reached the 26,491 level. Clearly, stadium attendance for an Atlanta Vertigo show would have been at least 40,000 given the rapid rate of the two sellouts.

Here is another example:

68. Tampa November 10, 1997 Houlihan's Stadium GROSS: $893,865 ATTENDANCE: 17,776

93. Tampa, Fla. : Nov. 16, 2005 : St. Pete Times Forum : GROSS $1,825,243 : ATTENDANCE 19,354 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

U2's gross on VERTIGO is more than DOUBLE that of their 1997 POPMART show. In addition, despite the fact that Vertigo took place in an arena instead of a stadium, attendance for the Vertigo show is higher than the POPMART stadium show. Whats more, the Vertigo show soldout within hours, the POPMART show was on sale for 6 months.

LOL! You're comparing markets from tours that were EIGHT years apart. Inflation went up about 17% and U2 sold about 40% more albums on this continent during this time. And you also conveniently skipped their 2001 Elevation tour. Whereas, the Vertigo tour was in 2005 and their next tour will be next year. And from 2005 to 2009, U2 will have only sold 10-15% more albums on this continent.

 

[Moggio]

You claimed that the formula's and idea's were actually not your own, so I simply asked where you got them from. If the formula's and idea's are not your own, who, what, or where did you get them from?

I've already gone over how and why I've come to the conclusions I've arrived at.

You used to say that return engagements were only 5% to 10% and yes I thought that it was higher.

That's NOT what I said. I said that with one set of shows it was that low.

Again, in 1996, Madonna had only been off the road for 2 to 3 years. Its not obvious at all.

And again, she didn't tour for another FIVE YEARS after that.

I'd be happy to see any type of source you could provide. Just because idea's and theory's are logical does not mean they are actually correct or an actual example of reality.

How do you even know that promoters have the same view as you do on these formula's and idea's? There are a number of business magazines like Billboard, and Billboardbiz.com that talk about these types of things in various types of articles.

If you look at each and every U2 tour gross, you'll notice it constantly increases. You'll also notice, their album sales constantly increase (of course). And when you look at the both of them in terms of rising percentages in relation to one another, every time U2 hits the road, in U2's case, the answer is obvious. If you can't see the obvious, then I can't help ya...

 

[Moggio]

I have nearly the entire tour as well. I'm only missing three shows, Mexico City, Lisbon, and the Denmark show.

You're missing my point, entirely...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Wrong. When I said that, it was ONE YEAR after the second North American leg of the Vertigo tour ended. And hence a best case scenario of 10-20% more, ONE YEAR AFTER - which would never have really happened, obviously.
:

You didn't say the words "ONE YEAR AFTER". In your first qoute, you admit that U2 underplayed on the Vertigo tour and that they could have grossed somewhere between 10% and 20% more than the actually did. You even said that the tour gross could have been $450,000,000!

Also remember, your the one who thinks it only takes one year for the market to completely recover.

No, they're not. Minus returns, U2 did not gross over $10.5 million in the LA metro area in 2005. San Diego received their own shows, so there was no need for a somewhat large percentage of fans to travel to LA. And even if U2's entire San Diego gross is added to the LA metro area shows' gross, it still doesn't eclipse Madonna's LA metro area total of $10.5 million on her Confessions tour in 2006.

Did Madonna play San Diego in 2006? Nope. So there for, if were going to accurately compare U2 and Madonna's Los Angeles performances in 2005 and 2006, U2's San Diego shows must be added in, since as you said, Madonna's San Diego fans obviously impacted her Los Angeles sales performance.

Just with U2's Spring shows, they did 10.3 million from the San Diego and LA area shows. Yes, Madonna did 10.5 million from her shows, but U2 returned for two more soldout shows in the fall which puts them over the top.

U2 are NOT as popular than you think they are. The content of my posts are objective and realistic. Something that obvious escapes you...

U2 are more popular than you think they are. The content of my posts are objective and realistic. Something that obviously is escaping you.

Well, as I've shown you above...you're dreaming if you think that U2 could pull off a coast to coast North American STADIUM tour at the prices they're charging nowadays - which will be around $120 next year..

Its a strong possibility no matter how much you dread it happening.

LOL! You're comparing markets from tours that were EIGHT years apart. Inflation went up about 17% and U2 sold about 40% more albums on this continent during this time. And you also conveniently skipped their 2001 Elevation tour. Whereas, the Vertigo tour was in 2005 and their next tour will be next year. And from 2005 to 2009, U2 will have only sold 10-15% more albums on this continent.

Ok, here are the results adjusted for inflation, all in 2005 dollars:


Take a look at these differences between POPMART and VERTIGO:

73. Atlanta November 26, 1997 Georgia Dome GROSS: $1,619,137 ATTENDANCE: 26,491

94, 95. Atlanta, Ga. : Nov. 18-19, 2005 : Philips Arena : GROSS $3,500,572 : ATTENDANCE 40,320 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

In Atlanta, U2 gross more than TWICE as much on the Vertigo Tour and attendance is increased by 50% at least. Notice that both shows for Vertigo Atlanta soldout all of the tickets made available on the initial day of sales. POPMART Atlanta by contrast was on sale for 6 months and only reached the 26,491 level. Clearly, stadium attendance for an Atlanta Vertigo show would have been at least 40,000 given the rapid rate of the two sellouts.

Here is another example:

68. Tampa November 10, 1997 Houlihan's Stadium GROSS: $1,092,057 ATTENDANCE: 17,776

93. Tampa, Fla. : Nov. 16, 2005 : St. Pete Times Forum : GROSS $1,825,243 : ATTENDANCE 19,354 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

U2's gross on VERTIGO is almost 70% HIGHER than that of their 1997 POPMART show. In addition, despite the fact that Vertigo took place in an arena instead of a stadium, attendance for the Vertigo show is higher than the POPMART stadium show. Whats more, the Vertigo show soldout within hours, the POPMART show was on sale for 6 months.


Which just talking about the results of the tour, and its clear U2 would have much stronger attendance on a coast to coast stadium tour of the United States, even if the average price was $120 dollars, than they did on the POPMART tour. They averaged 36,000 on POPMART and they would only need to get to 44,000 to equal the average of the ZOO TV Outside Broadcast Tour.

I've already gone over how and why I've come to the conclusions I've arrived at.

If you came up with the formula's and idea's yourself, I can understand why you can't find any sources or people that have the same exact view. If you did not come up with the formula's and idea's yourself, then you should be able to show where or from whom you got them from.

And again, she didn't tour for another FIVE YEARS after that.

But no one knew that would be the case in 1996.

If you look at each and every U2 tour gross, you'll notice it constantly increases. You'll also notice, their album sales constantly increase (of course). And when you look at the both of them in terms of rising percentages in relation to one another, every time U2 hits the road, in U2's case, the answer is obvious. If you can't see the obvious, then I can't help ya...

Thats not necessarily true. Tampa ZOO TV and Denver ZOO TV grossed more than POPMART Tampa and POPMART Denver and thats without adjusting for inflation. The Elevation Tour had a lower gross than the POPMART tour.




Something that is very, very revealing about Madonna's touring from 2001 to 2008, is despite how freqruently she has toured, she nearly always plays different markets or completely skips some markets which naturally boost demand for the markets that she does play. The only markets that Madonna has played every tour since 2001 are the following:

London
Paris

Los Angeles
San Fran/Oakland
Chicago
Boston
New York City
Philadelphia
Miami
Las Vegas


Essentially, the only markets she has bothered to play consistently on each tour are the biggest ones and there are only two in Europe and 8 in the United States. Then, when we examine how often she has played these markets, we discover its roughly the same as U2 have played in total on just two of their tours.

So this idea that Madonna has oversaturated the market in Chicago or anywhere else is total rubbish. Its clear that her gross totals are inflated from playing such a limited number of shows in various countries forcing fans in many cities and towns to travel to other markets to see her.

If Madonna, were to tour like U2, her average gross per show would drop. Even with the limited number of shows she is doing on the current tour, she is struggling to sell tickets in markets like Chicago. There are still relatively cheap tickets available for many of these shows.


Again, look at Switzerland! U2 played there 10 times before they played there on the Vertigo tour in 2005. Madonna just played there for the first time this year. To say that Madonna has underplayed Switzerland is a gross understatement. She had never played there before which dramatically inflated the gross she made there this year.

 

[Moggio]

You didn't say the words "ONE YEAR AFTER". In your first qoute, you admit that U2 underplayed on the Vertigo tour and that they could have grossed somewhere between 10% and 20% more than the actually did. You even said that the tour gross could have been $450,000,000!

I said that ONE YEAR AFTER the second leg of the Vertigo tour ended. Don't you get it? And hence 10-20% growth would be the best case scenario - and that's being very generous. Don't you get it?

Also remember, your the one who thinks it only takes one year for the market to completely recover.

For many artists, yes. Not for all artists.

Did Madonna play San Diego in 2006? Nope. So there for, if were going to accurately compare U2 and Madonna's Los Angeles performances in 2005 and 2006, U2's San Diego shows must be added in, since as you said, Madonna's San Diego fans obviously impacted her Los Angeles sales performance.

No, I said ONLY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE of her San Diego fans would. Not EVERY San Diego fan would travel to LA.

Just with U2's Spring shows, they did 10.3 million from the San Diego and LA area shows. Yes, Madonna did 10.5 million from her shows, but U2 returned for two more soldout shows in the fall which puts them over the top.

Wrong. U2's LA metro area fall 2005 shows were RETURN ENGAGEMENTS.

U2 are more popular than you think they are.

You're definitely in denial.

The content of my posts are objective and realistic. Something that obviously is escaping you.

How original. You're stealing what I just said to support your own thoughts?

Its a strong possibility no matter how much you dread it happening.

Not according to the evidence. And I don't dread it.

Ok, here are the results adjusted for inflation, all in 2005 dollars:


Take a look at these differences between POPMART and VERTIGO:

73. Atlanta November 26, 1997 Georgia Dome GROSS: $1,619,137 ATTENDANCE: 26,491

94, 95. Atlanta, Ga. : Nov. 18-19, 2005 : Philips Arena : GROSS $3,500,572 : ATTENDANCE 40,320 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

In Atlanta, U2 gross more than TWICE as much on the Vertigo Tour and attendance is increased by 50% at least. Notice that both shows for Vertigo Atlanta soldout all of the tickets made available on the initial day of sales. POPMART Atlanta by contrast was on sale for 6 months and only reached the 26,491 level. Clearly, stadium attendance for an Atlanta Vertigo show would have been at least 40,000 given the rapid rate of the two sellouts.

Here is another example:

68. Tampa November 10, 1997 Houlihan's Stadium GROSS: $1,092,057 ATTENDANCE: 17,776

93. Tampa, Fla. : Nov. 16, 2005 : St. Pete Times Forum : GROSS $1,825,243 : ATTENDANCE 19,354 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

U2's gross on VERTIGO is almost 70% HIGHER than that of their 1997 POPMART show. In addition, despite the fact that Vertigo took place in an arena instead of a stadium, attendance for the Vertigo show is higher than the POPMART stadium show. Whats more, the Vertigo show soldout within hours, the POPMART show was on sale for 6 months.

1. None of the Atlanta Vertigo shows "sold out", as there are ALWAYS tickets available. Promoters can make concerts look full, if they want to, based on the adjustment of venue capacities & ticket prices in relation to what the gross is. And Philips Arena's capacity is higher than 20,160. And on the first leg of the Elevation tour, they sold 20,596 tickets at the same venue with the same setup.

2. For Tampa, inflation went up about 17% from 1997 to 2005. And then U2 sold around 40% more albums during this period. Your example actually fits the formula I'm talking about, as does their tours OVERALL. Also, Tampa was not "sold out", as there ALWAYS are ticket available. Promoters can make concerts look full, if they want to, based on the adjustment of venue capacities & ticket prices in relation to what the gross is.

3. I was talking about OVERALL tour gross, when I said that each & every U2 tour grosses more than the last, in relation to overall album sales, at that point in time. I wasn't talking about a specific market, as there's always going to be weaker/stronger markets on each tour...

Which just talking about the results of the tour, and its clear U2 would have much stronger attendance on a coast to coast stadium tour of the United States, even if the average price was $120 dollars, than they did on the POPMART tour. They averaged 36,000 on POPMART and they would only need to get to 44,000 to equal the average of the ZOO TV Outside Broadcast Tour.

I've already proven that to be incorrect with compelling evidence to the contrary.

If you came up with the formula's and idea's yourself, I can understand why you can't find any sources or people that have the same exact view. If you did not come up with the formula's and idea's yourself, then you should be able to show where or from whom you got them from.

What I've gone over with you now explicitly, isn't difficult to figure out. And it's beyond obvious that it's how U2's tours are structured (with a few exceptions).

But no one knew that would be the case in 1996.

Really? How do you know that?

Thats not necessarily true. Tampa ZOO TV and Denver ZOO TV grossed more than POPMART Tampa and POPMART Denver and thats without adjusting for inflation.

OVERALL, although the PopMart tour's grosses only increased by a very small margin from the ZOO TV tour (apart from a few markets that they hadn't played in before and a few other exceptions), they did basically sustain. And this is because Pop tanked and didn't sell as well as expected. If their next album tanks, the Vertigo tour grosses might have a similar fate..but I doubt it because U2 aren't musically on the cutting edge anymore and write with the same forumla that their past two studio albums are comprised of.

The Elevation Tour had a lower gross than the POPMART tour

Not in North America. And the only reason why it grossed less in the UK/Europe was because, like on this continent, they scheduled the tour in arenas and structured the tour around the demand from PopMart...but at higher prices. They did this because they weren't sure how well ATYCLB was going to do because of how badly Pop did. But promoters did leave gaps in the schedule where they could add shows if necessary (the NYC metro area for example), just in case the album did do better than expected - which it did...

Something that is very, very revealing about Madonna's touring from 2001 to 2008, is despite how freqruently she has toured, she nearly always plays different markets or completely skips some markets which naturally boost demand for the markets that she does play.

The only markets that Madonna has played every tour since 2001 are the following:

London
Paris

Los Angeles
San Fran/Oakland
Chicago
Boston
New York City
Philadelphia
Miami
Las Vegas

Essentially, the only markets she has bothered to play consistently on each tour are the biggest ones and there are only two in Europe and 8 in the United States. Then, when we examine how often she has played these markets, we discover its roughly the same as U2 have played in total on just two of their tours.

So this idea that Madonna has oversaturated the market in Chicago or anywhere else is total rubbish. Its clear that her gross totals are inflated from playing such a limited number of shows in various countries forcing fans in many cities and towns to travel to other markets to see her.

If Madonna, were to tour like U2, her average gross per show would drop. Even with the limited number of shows she is doing on the current tour, she is struggling to sell tickets in markets like Chicago. There are still relatively cheap tickets available for many of these shows.

Madonna has NOT "nearly always played different markets or completely skips some markets which naturally boost demand for the markets that she does play". You're conveniently forgetting that Madonna plays multiple shows in most markets she plays in. That brings her total amount of shows to roughly half of her entire recent tours. Also many of the markets surrounding the other markets she plays already have their own shows and hence larger percentages of fans don't need to travel to the centralized markets to see her. And that renders the rest of the rubbish in your above post irrelevant...

I've gone over this a million times before.

Again, look at Switzerland! U2 played there 10 times before they played there on the Vertigo tour in 2005. Madonna just played there for the first time this year. To say that Madonna has underplayed Switzerland is a gross understatement. She had never played there before which dramatically inflated the gross she made there this year.

Madonna grossed more in this country than U2 did. That means, she's a larger draw. It doesn't matter how many times U2's played there. Madonna is obviously more popular there - and that's very impressive, considering she's only played there ONCE.

And for example, U2's played Vancouver several times but Madonna isn't going to outgross them (it's one of the few markets where she can't) when she plays BC Place Stadium on the 30th of this month. But by your logic, that means she will outgross U2 just because she's playing here for the first time...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I said that ONE YEAR AFTER the second leg of the Vertigo tour ended. Don't you get it? And hence 10-20% growth would be the best case scenario - and that's being very generous. Don't you get it?
:

You NEVER said it was the "best case scenario", you said that it was the situation. You stated that U2 could have grossed $450 million dollars instead of just $389 million dollars. The range by which they could have grossed more was at least 10% but as high as 20%.

I can post your words again if you like.

For many artists, yes. Not for all artists.

Who were we debating about when this came up, U2 and the Rolling Stones. I don't see why it would not apply to Madonna.

No, I said ONLY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE of her San Diego fans would. Not EVERY San Diego fan would travel to LA

All I'm doing is using the same camparison you used for Fresno/San fran, and Philadelphia/Atlantic City. If your going to match them up, then you can match up San Diego/Los Angeles.

Wrong. U2's LA metro area fall 2005 shows were RETURN ENGAGEMENTS.

It doesn't matter. Many U2 fans that were unable to get tickets in the spring were able to get them in the fall.

You're definitely in denial.

Your an anti-U2 troll who will say anything to reduce the level of U2's popularity or put some bad light on the band all the while pretending to be objective. Anyone who would look at your current post history would agree.

Not according to the evidence. And I don't dread it.

Sure.

1. None of the Atlanta Vertigo shows "sold out", as there are ALWAYS tickets available.

False. There are a finite number of tickets available. I actually checked for tickets for this show, and could not get any through ticketmaster. Someone reselling a ticket is irrelevant. Its already a purchase as far as the band is concerned.

Promoters can make concerts look full, if they want to, based on the adjustment of venue capacities & ticket prices in relation to what the gross is. And Philips Arena's capacity is higher than 20,160. And on the first leg of the Elevation tour, they sold 20,596 tickets at the same venue with the same setup.

There can be small changes in total capacity for a large number of reasons that actually don't involve the artist playing to a smaller than total available capacity. Again, you could not get tickets through ticketmaster, plus none of the pictures show any gaps that would explain not selling 400 tickets. Changes to the structure of the interior could account for the difference.

2. For Tampa, inflation went up about 17% from 1997 to 2005. And then U2 sold around 40% more albums during this period. Your example actually fits the formula I'm talking about, as does their tours OVERALL. Also, Tampa was not "sold out", as there ALWAYS are ticket available. Promoters can make concerts look full, if they want to, based on the adjustment of venue capacities & ticket prices in relation to what the gross is.

I adjusted the inflation rates based on the annual US inflation rate as reported by the federal government. The concert was soldout because fans were unable to get tickets through ticketmaster.

Notice that U2's gross in Tampa went DOWN after ZOO TV with POPMART, but went up with VERTIGO EVEN when you adjust for inflation. So much for your little formula which is not even relevant to the point being made.

. I was talking about OVERALL tour gross, when I said that each & every U2 tour grosses more than the last, in relation to overall album sales, at that point in time. I wasn't talking about a specific market, as there's always going to be weaker/stronger markets on each tour...

But we were talking about specific markets and your responded with this formula to explain things. In addition, gross on the Elevation tour was not as high as the POPMART tour.

I've already proven that to be incorrect with compelling evidence to the contrary.

Its what you have imagined, you have not proved anything.

What I've gone over with you now explicitly, isn't difficult to figure out. And it's beyond obvious that it's how U2's tours are structured (with a few exceptions).

If you came up with the formula's and idea's yourself, I can understand why you can't find any sources or people that have the same exact view. If you did not come up with the formula's and idea's yourself, then you should be able to show where or from whom you got them from.

Really? How do you know that?

Because Madonna never stated that she was planning NOT to tour for the next five years.

but I doubt it because U2 aren't musically on the cutting edge anymore and write with the same forumla that their past two studio albums are comprised of.

Its this type of BS which shows you are an anti-U2 troll. Its the basic thing anyone could conclude from looking at your posting history on a U2 fan website.

Madonna has NOT "nearly always played different markets or completely skips some markets which naturally boost demand for the markets that she does play". You're conveniently forgetting that Madonna plays multiple shows in most markets she plays in. That brings her total amount of shows to roughly half of her entire recent tours. Also many of the markets surrounding the other markets she plays already have their own shows and hence larger percentages of fans don't need to travel to the centralized markets to see her. And that renders the rest of the rubbish in your above post irrelevant...

I've gone over this a million times before.

The above is probably your weakest argument of all and is actually contradicted by your own statements.

The ONLY markets, Madonna has consistently played since 2001 on each tour are the following:

London
Paris

Los Angeles
San Fran/Oakland
Chicago
Boston
New York City
Philadelphia
Miami
Las Vegas


Yes, she has played these cities multiple times at each stop, with the exception of Miami, Los Angeles, London, and Philadelphia this year.

But for example take Chicago. She has will have played 12 shows there since 2001 by the end of this tour. U2 by contrast has already played 12 shows in Chicago over just a four year period from 2001 to 2005. In addition, Madonna's 2001 shows in Chicago were her first shows there since 1990, 11 YEARS!!!!! Madonna will have only played Chicago 17 times by the end of this year, for her ENTIRE career. If U2 do Arena's next year, they may be at 18 shows for Chicago just from 2001 through 2009.

Even when you take a market that Madonna has never skipped except once in 1993, you can't claim she is a bigger draw than U2 is there and that the only reason her Chicago shows this year won't gross $11 million dollars is because she has oversaturated the market. By U2's standards she has underplayed the market which explains why her per show gross is higher.

Again, there are only two shows in Chicago this year, and there are still $98 dollar tickets available from ticketmaster.

Madonna grossed more in this country than U2 did. That means, she's a larger draw. It doesn't matter how many times U2's played there. Madonna is obviously more popular there - and that's very impressive, considering she's only played there ONCE.

As you have so often said, underplaying a certain market contributes to a higher gross when the artist does finally play that market. To say that Madonna has underplayed Switzerland is a gross understatement. She has NEVER played there before. She has been an ACTIVE recording artist since 1983 and has sold hundreds of millions of albums worldwide. This is the first time in a QUARTER OF A CENTURY that SWISS fans got to see her in their own country.

By contrast, U2 had already played in Switzerland 10 times over the years prior to their Vertigo Swiss show. If U2 had toured Europe as sparingly as Madonna did and never played Switzerland, the Vertigo Tour Swiss should would have easily outgrossed her show.

A better comparison to Madonna's shows in Austria and Switzerland would be to compare them to the Police. The Police had never played either country before, so in that sense they are somewhat on the same playing field. BUT, to be fair to the Police, they have not had an active recording career for 25 years, while Madonna has had an active recording career for the past 25 years, so even in this case, Madonna's figures relative to the Police are a big inflated because of that difference.

And for example, U2's played Vancouver several times but Madonna isn't going to outgross them (it's one of the few markets where she can't) when she plays BC Place Stadium on the 30th of this month. But by your logic, that means she will outgross U2 just because she's playing here for the first time...

If Madonna does not outgross U2's two Vertigo shows there, all it would show is that she has a relatively low level of popularity there compared to U2. If she had played Vancouver as many times as U2 had, she would not be playing the stadium on this tour stop, or even more likely, would not be playing there at all this year.

Again, when you have NEVER played a certain market before and have had a 25 year ACTIVE recording career that is one of the most popular in the world preceding the show, it heavily inflates the demand level in that market.

 

[Moggio]

You NEVER said it was the "best case scenario", you said that it was the situation. You stated that U2 could have grossed $450 million dollars instead of just $389 million dollars. The range by which they could have grossed more was at least 10% but as high as 20%.

I can post your words again if you like.

Sure. You can post all the quotes you want. Then I'll post how you actually were trying to prove that U2 were a larger draw than the Stones, even though the Stones grossed nearly $170 million more than U2 did on their previous tours by using the same "techniques" you're using here...

I didn't have to say it was the best case scenario because ONLY AFTER ONE YEAR, it was obvious. No major artist's grosses/ back catalogue album sales increase that much in only one year, after they've already been established. YOU KNOW THAT.

Who were we debating about when this came up, U2 and the Rolling Stones. I don't see why it would not apply to Madonna.

The point at which an artists' demand eventually sustains full circle, depends on how hardcore that artists' fanbase is. So it obviously doesn't apply to every artist's fanbase.

All I'm doing is using the same camparison you used for Fresno/San fran, and Philadelphia/Atlantic City. If your going to match them up, then you can match up San Diego/Los Angeles.

No, you can't. Simply because Atlantic City/Philadelphia are virtually the same market, since they are extremely close together. And because Fresno received no show in 2004 but did in 2006 and hence is why the gross/attendance was lower in 2006 in the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area than compared to 2004. Whereas, LA and San Diego are not the same market and could only be "matched up" if one or the other didn't receive a show.

It doesn't matter.Many U2 fans that were unable to get tickets in the spring were able to get them in the fall.

Wrong.

Your an anti-U2 troll who will say anything to reduce the level of U2's popularity or put some bad light on the band all the while pretending to be objective. Anyone who would look at your current post history would agree.

While I don't like their current music, I love their older material. So that's not true. All I'm doing is bringing realistic and objective thought into this forum (something it desperately needs), without having fanboys like you trying to make U2 look like they're the largest draw in the world, when they clearly aren't. Anyone who would look at your current post history would agree.

Sure.

Not true.

False. There are a finite number of tickets available.

That's NOT what I said.

I actually checked for tickets for this show, and could not get any through ticketmaster. Someone reselling a ticket is irrelevant. Its already a purchase as far as the band is concerned.

Wrong. There are always tickets available. If a ticket is available to a show, it's NOT sold out.

There can be small changes in total capacity for a large number of reasons that actually don't involve the artist playing to a smaller than total available capacity. Again, you could not get tickets through ticketmaster, plus none of the pictures show any gaps that would explain not selling 400 tickets. Changes to the structure of the interior could account for the difference.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Keep spinnin' it...

I adjusted the inflation rates based on the annual US inflation rate as reported by the federal government. The concert was soldout because fans were unable to get tickets through ticketmaster.

Incorrect.

Notice that U2's gross in Tampa went DOWN after ZOO TV with POPMART, but went up with VERTIGO EVEN when you adjust for inflation. So much for your little formula which is not even relevant to the point being made.

But we were talking about specific markets and your responded with this formula to explain things. In addition, gross on the Elevation tour was not as high as the POPMART tour.

The formula still stands, as I already went over the logical exceptions with you...that were few and far between.

Its what you have imagined, you have not proved anything.

You can't be serious? The numbers the don't lie.

If you came up with the formula's and idea's yourself, I can understand why you can't find any sources or people that have the same exact view. If you did not come up with the formula's and idea's yourself, then you should be able to show where or from whom you got them from.

How, when or where I got them from is of no concern. The point here is that I've proven to you without a doubt that U2's overall tour grosses in relation to their album sales, tells the story quite clearly when analyzing their concert demand (apart from a few exceptions). It's very simple.

Because Madonna never stated that she was planning NOT to tour for the next five years.

She didn't have to...IT'S OBVIOUS.

Its this type of BS which shows you are an anti-U2 troll. Its the basic thing anyone could conclude from looking at your posting history on a U2 fan website.

No, it's actually true that U2 aren't on the cutting edge anymore. And if I'm an anti-U2 troll, then why an I about to listen to The Unforgettable Fire in a few minutes?

The above is probably your weakest argument of all and is actually contradicted by your own statements.

Not in the least. And look who's talking.

The ONLY markets, Madonna has consistently played since 2001 on each tour are the following:

London
Paris

Los Angeles
San Fran/Oakland
Chicago
Boston
New York City
Philadelphia
Miami
Las Vegas

So what? She has short tours.

Yes, she has played these cities multiple times at each stop, with the exception of Miami, Los Angeles, London, and Philadelphia this year.

But for example take Chicago. She has will have played 12 shows there since 2001 by the end of this tour. U2 by contrast has already played 12 shows in Chicago over just a four year period from 2001 to 2005. In addition, Madonna's 2001 shows in Chicago were her first shows there since 1990, 11 YEARS!!!!! Madonna will have only played Chicago 17 times by the end of this year, for her ENTIRE career. If U2 do Arena's next year, they may be at 18 shows for Chicago just from 2001 through 2009.

And you say I construct bad comparisons regarding CURRENT demand? Adding up to total amount of shows they've both played in one market over a several year period does NOTHING to prove your patently ridiculous points, whatsoever. Demand can (and has in this case) change rapidly over that period of time. This is your most hilarious post so far!

Even when you take a market that Madonna has never skipped except once in 1993, you can't claim she is a bigger draw than U2 is there and that the only reason her Chicago shows this year won't gross $11 million dollars is because she has oversaturated the market. By U2's standards she has underplayed the market which explains why her per show gross is higher.

She's played in Chicago every other year for five years. With a massive touring artist like Madonna, that can obviously change things. For you not to see that is unbelievable. But the fact that she can and has outgrossed U2 there for the past five years is very impressive.

Again, there are only two shows in Chicago this year, and there are still $98 dollar tickets available from ticketmaster.

Again, for the two millionth time...TICKETS ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE.

As you have so often said, underplaying a certain market contributes to a higher gross when the artist does finally play that market. To say that Madonna has underplayed Switzerland is a gross understatement. She has NEVER played there before. She has been an ACTIVE recording artist since 1983 and has sold hundreds of millions of albums worldwide. This is the first time in a QUARTER OF A CENTURY that SWISS fans got to see her in their own country.

By contrast, U2 had already played in Switzerland 10 times over the years prior to their Vertigo Swiss show. If U2 had toured Europe as sparingly as Madonna did and never played Switzerland, the Vertigo Tour Swiss should would have easily outgrossed her show.

A better comparison to Madonna's shows in Austria and Switzerland would be to compare them to the Police. The Police had never played either country before, so in that sense they are somewhat on the same playing field. BUT, to be fair to the Police, they have not had an active recording career for 25 years, while Madonna has had an active recording career for the past 25 years, so even in this case, Madonna's figures relative to the Police are a big inflated because of that difference.

Vancouver:

If Madonna does not outgross U2's two Vertigo shows there, all it would show is that she has a relatively low level of popularity there compared to U2. If she had played Vancouver as many times as U2 had, she would not be playing the stadium on this tour stop, or even more likely, would not be playing there at all this year.

Again, when you have NEVER played a certain market before and have had a 25 year ACTIVE recording career that is one of the most popular in the world preceding the show, it heavily inflates the demand level in that market.

You've just contradicted yourself using your U2 and Madonna examples regarding their demand levels in Switzerland and Vancouver. You use the Switzerland example to try and make U2 look more popular than Madonna, even though they didn't even come close to grossing more than Madonna there, by stating they've played more shows in this country than she has and because she's only played there once. Whereas, when looking at Vancouver's demand for these two artists, even though Madonna will have only played here once (just like Switzerland), you state that if she does not outgross U2 here, it's because there's low demand.

Two completely different outcomes, despite stating one specific example regarding the demand level of playing a particular market only once.

And whether or not Madonna wouldn't be able to outgross U2 in Switzerland if she had already played there several times over the years, like U2, instead of once, is something you cannot prove, even remotely, even if it were true...which it isn't.

Let's look at their most current Switzerland grosses:

U2
July 18, 2005
Zurich, Switzerland
Stadion Letzigrund
Capacity: 44,260
Attendance: 44,260
Gross: $3,574,993 USD

Madonna
August 30, 2008
Zurich, Switzerland
Military Airfield
Capacity: 70,314
Attendance: 70,314
Gross: $11,093,631 USD


Congrats! This is now your most ridiculous post so far!

So remember people...if runner A (Madonna) wins the race, they really haven't won the race...because runner B (U2) was ahead of them for 60% (or fill in adjustable percentage) of the entire race!

Thanks for the continuous entertainment! See ya tomorrow night!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Sure. You can post all the quotes you want. Then I'll post how you actually were trying to prove that U2 were a larger draw than the Stones, even though the Stones grossed nearly $170 million more than U2 did on their previous tours by using the same "techniques" you're using here...

I claimed that U2 were a larger draw than the Rolling Stones outside of the USA/Canada market because nearly every show soldout the day it was put on sale, while the Rolling Stones shows only slowly crawled to sellouts or often did not even sellout. Despite playing many more shows than U2 did outside the USA/Canada market, their gross was only $20 million dollars higher outside the USA/Canada market. Then, if we take your formula which says that U2 could have grossed somewhere between 10% and 20% more on the tour, as well as inflation, then U2 is clearly the leader outside the USA/Canada market over the Stones.

I didn't have to say it was the best case scenario because ONLY AFTER ONE YEAR, it was obvious. No top catalogue seller's album sales increase that much in only one year. YOU KNOW THAT.

Oh yes, it was obvious. Your statement was that U2 could have grossed $450 million dollars, between 10% and 20% more. You didn't mention any of this other crap.

The point at which an artists' demand eventually sustains full circle, depends on how hardcore that artists' fanbase is. So it obviously doesn't apply to every artist's fanbase.

We were already talking about specific artist, the biggest names in the industry.

No, you can't. Simply because Atlantic City/Philadelphia are virtually the same market, since they are extremely close together. And because Fresno received no show in 2004 but did in 2006 and hence is why the gross/attendance was lower in 2006 in the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area than compared to 2004. Whereas, LA and San Diego are not the same market and could only be "matched up" if one or the other didn't receive a show.

It takes 1.5 hours to drive from Philadelphia to Atlantic City, 2 hours for San Diego to Los Angeles, 3 hours for Fresno to San Fran. Madonna did not play San Diego in 2006, in fact she has not played San Diego since APRIL 1985! For the first time in nearly a quarter of a century, she will be playing San Diego on her 2008 tour. Yet, the show is not even soldout and still has $55 dollar tickets available.

But the point is the comparisons your drawing with the other markets are the same with the San Diego/Los Angeles market.

[Wrong.
/QUOTE]

There were U2 fans all across the country who were unable to get tickets for certain shows on the Spring leg in 2005 including myself. Sorry, but going to a scalper or ticket reseller is not something many in the general public are willing to do.

While I don't like their current music, I love their older material. So that's not true. All I'm doing is bringing realistic and objective thought into this forum (something it desperately needs), without having fanboys like you trying to make U2 look like they're the largest draw in the world, when they clearly aren't. Anyone who would look at your current post history would agree.

Do you understand that this is a U2 fan website with rules against trolling? Look at your post count so far and find a post that could be considered 100% positive with respect to U2. Thats what I'm talking about.

Wrong. There are always tickets available. If a ticket is available to a show, it's NOT sold out.

If a scalper buys a ticket, it is sold, regardless of whether or not they are actually able to sell the ticket. U2 gets the money from the sell of such a ticket and its no longer available in the ticketmaster system for normal fans from the general public to purchase.

You could not purchase tickets from ticketmaster the day before or the day of the show, thats a fact because I tried.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Keep spinnin' it...

Anyone that claims to have studied the concert industry and boxscores for 18 years would have understood that. But actually I'm not surprised you would dismiss it.

Incorrect.

Correct!

How, when or where I got them from is of no concern. The point here is that I've proven to you without a doubt that U2's overall tour grosses in relation to their album sales, tells the story quite clearly when analyzing their concert demand. It's very simple.

Looks like you can't decide whether you made them up yourself or got them from someone else.

She didn't have to...IT'S OBVIOUS.

Ah, everyone just knew Madonna would not be touring for another 5 years, because well, they just knew!?!?

No, it's actually true that U2 aren't on the cutting edge anymore. And if I'm an anti-U2 troll, then why an I about to listen to The Unforgettable Fire in a few minutes?

Since when do YOU determine what is on the cutting edge and what is not? As for being an anti-U2 troll, just look at your posting history here.

So what? She has short tours.

You don't really saturate any specific market when most of them either get skipped or are being played for the first time. The reason Madonna does so well and many of these markets as of late is because she has either underplayed them or never played them before at all. Even in the markets she does play on a regular basis over the past decade, we discover that her number of shows in these markets is roughly the same as U2 over the same period. Plus, she gets the benefit of fans traveling from nearby markets that she doesn't play to attend these shows. The fact is, her gross figures are inflated for these reasons.

You've just contradicted yourself using your U2 and Madonna examples regarding their demand levels in Switzerland and Vancouver. You use the Switzerland example to try and make U2 look more popular than Madonna, even though they didn't even come close to grossing more than Madonna there, by stating they've played more shows in this country than she has and because she's only played there once. Whereas, when looking at Vancouver's demand for these two artists, even though Madonna will have only played here once (just like Switzerland), you state that if she does not outgross U2 here, it's because there's low demand.

Two completely different outcomes, despite stating one specific example regarding the demand level of playing a particular market only once.

Whats funny is that you don't understand that there is absolutely no contradiction. The fact that Madonna has never played Vancouver before or Switzerland before, increases the level of demand to see her once she does play these markets. A difference in U2 still beating her in Vancouver while not beating her in Switzerland simply shows that her base level of support although heavily increased by her never playing there before, started at a much lower level and has only gradually increased over the years compared to Switzerland. Madonna's demand levels were at their maximum possible levels in both markets because she had never played in either before. Had she played Switzerland as many times as U2 had before this years concert, its unlikely that she would have outgrossed U2 in Switzerland. If her show in Vancouver does not out gross U2's two arena shows from 2005, it just shows that she was starting from a much lower base of support than she was in Switzerland. Her only Ireland show would be another example of this. Both are further examples showing that she is not a larger draw than U2.

And whether or not Madonna wouldn't be able to outgross U2 in Switzerland if she had already played there several times over the years, like U2, instead of once, is something you cannot prove, even remotely, even if it were true...which it isn't.

Its obvious, and you've been one to bring up the impact of underplaying the market in contributing to higher grosses even more than myself. In this case, its not actually underplaying the market, its not playing that market AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Moggio]

I claimed that U2 were a larger draw than the Rolling Stones outside of the USA/Canada market because nearly every show soldout the day it was put on sale, while the Rolling Stones shows only slowly crawled to sellouts or often did not even sellout. Despite playing many more shows than U2 did outside the USA/Canada market, their gross was only $20 million dollars higher outside the USA/Canada market. Then, if we take your formula which says that U2 could have grossed somewhere between 10% and 20% more on the tour, as well as inflation, then U2 is clearly the leader outside the USA/Canada market over the Stones.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!No, you claimed U2 are the larger draw worldwide. But of course, they aren't.

Oh yes, it was obvious. Your statement was that U2 could have grossed $450 million dollars, between 10% and 20% more. You didn't mention any of this other crap.

It doesn't surprise me you can't admit to what I meant at the time.

We were already talking about specific artist, the biggest names in the industry.

No, you were.

It takes 1.5 hours to drive from Philadelphia to Atlantic City, 2 hours for San Diego to Los Angeles, 3 hours for Fresno to San Fran.

I know that. But that doesn't detract from my point.

Madonna did not play San Diego in 2006, in fact she has not played San Diego since APRIL 1985! For the first time in nearly a quarter of a century, she will be playing San Diego on her 2008 tour. Yet, the show is not even soldout and still has $55 dollar tickets available.

It doesn't matter when she last played there. NO show is EVER sold out. Tickets are ALWAYS available. And she's playing PETCO Park in San Diego, which is a STADIUM.

But the point is the comparisons your drawing with the other markets are the same with the San Diego/Los Angeles market.

No, they aren't. I've already gone over why. You just choose to deny the obvious. Big surprise.

There were U2 fans all across the country who were unable to get tickets for certain shows on the Spring leg in 2005 including myself. Sorry, but going to a scalper or ticket reseller is not something many in the general public are willing to do.

If tickets are available, tickets are available. And they were. Period.

Do you understand that this is a U2 fan website with rules against trolling? Look at your post count so far and find a post that could be considered 100% positive with respect to U2. Thats what I'm talking about.

I'm no troll. I bring objective thought.

If a scalper buys a ticket, it is sold, regardless of whether or not they are actually able to sell the ticket. U2 gets the money from the sell of such a ticket and its no longer available in the ticketmaster system for normal fans from the general public to purchase.

If a fan doesn't/can't/won't buy a ticket from scalper/broker and that ticket isn't scanned at the venue doors, that ticket isn't counted as attendance, whether it was sold or not. And hence part of the reason why scalpers/brokers contribute to an artificially elevated demand.

You could not purchase tickets from ticketmaster the day before or the day of the show, thats a fact because I tried.

In order to ascertain that, you'd have to be fishing for tickets online every single minute of every single hour for 48 hours. And even if that was true, it still doesn't mean the show was sold out.

Anyone that claims to have studied the concert industry and boxscores for 18 years would have understood that. But actually I'm not surprised you would dismiss it.

And I'm not surprised you're still trying to spin it.

Correct!

Incorrect.

Looks like you can't decide whether you made them up yourself or got them from someone else.

Looks like you can't decide whether to admit you're wrong or not?

Ah, everyone just knew Madonna would not be touring for another 5 years, because well, they just knew!?!?

Promoters did. Obviously.

Since when do YOU determine what is on the cutting edge and what is not? As for being an anti-U2 troll, just look at your posting history here.

By using your ears. It's pretty easy.

You don't really saturate any specific market when most of them either get skipped or are being played for the first time. The reason Madonna does so well and many of these markets as of late is because she has either underplayed them or never played them before at all. Even in the markets she does play on a regular basis over the past decade, we discover that her number of shows in these markets is roughly the same as U2 over the same period. Plus, she gets the benefit of fans traveling from nearby markets that she doesn't play to attend these shows. The fact is, her gross figures are inflated for these reasons.

The only fact here is, is that I've proven everything you've said above to be incorrect AND that Madonna is a larger draw than U2 is in markets they both have comparably played and is obviously worldwide too.

Whats funny is that you don't understand that there is absolutely no contradiction. The fact that Madonna has never played Vancouver before or Switzerland before, increases the level of demand to see her once she does play these markets. A difference in U2 still beating her in Vancouver while not beating her in Switzerland simply shows that her base level of support although heavily increased by her never playing there before, started at a much lower level and has only gradually increased over the years compared to Switzerland. Madonna's demand levels were at their maximum possible levels in both markets because she had never played in either before. Had she played Switzerland as many times as U2 had before this years concert, its unlikely that she would have outgrossed U2 in Switzerland. If her show in Vancouver does not out gross U2's two arena shows from 2005, it just shows that she was starting from a much lower base of support than she was in Switzerland. Her only Ireland show would be another example of this. Both are further examples showing that she is not a larger draw than U2.

No, what's funny is that there still is a complete contradiction. Regardless of what the actual demand level is in terms of $$$, you are trying to use the same criteria for two completely different and opposite market demand level comparisons. Or, in other words, you're typically utilizing the lowest common denominator for Madonna, while utilizing the highest common denominator for U2, even though it's the SAME example.

Big surprise...

Its obvious, and you've been one to bring up the impact of underplaying the market in contributing to higher grosses even more than myself. In this case, its not actually underplaying the market, its not playing that market AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope. And what's really obvious, is that even adjusted for inflation/accumulative album sales, U2's Switzerland gross would still be around 2.5x less than Madonna's Switzerland gross!

LOL!!!!!


You just keep diggin' that hole...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!No, you claimed U2 are the larger draw worldwide. But of course, they aren't.

I was stating in reference to outside the USA/Canada if you remember. I do think U2 is close to being the larger draw especially when you consider the fact that nearly all of their shows soldout the day they were put on sale. Unlike, you, I think U2 could have grossed more than 20% of what they actually did on the Vertigo tour.

But, try finding a qoute instead of just wildly claiming things.

It doesn't surprise me you can't admit to what I meant at the time.

The following is what you said:

Yes, U2 could've grossed more money than they've already grossed on their Vertigo tour (I'd say 10-20% more, based on the sales of their latest album, which would be around $450 million USD) but not more than what the Stones are going to wind up grossing once their A Bigger Bang tour ends next year.

Quote:
Also, there wasn't/isn't "heavy" demand for additional U2 shows but I agree they could've played to 10-20% more fans based on the sales of their current album and if they charged the same amount of money they did last year.

Quote:
U2 could not play to more than 10-20% more people in ANY market worldwide than they already have on their current tour due to the sales based on their latest studio album.

Quote:
Once again, I agree that they underplayed worldwide but only by 10-20% based on the sales of their current album.

Quote:
U2 ONLY underplayed by 10-20% for the one millionth time.


Provided you know how to read, you'll realize you never said "best case scenerio".

No, you were.

Really, do you have a qoute that shows you were not talking about the biggest artist on the planet like U2 and the Rolling Stones? What was the topic of the thread? Who were we talking about?

[I know that. But that doesn't detract from my point. /QUOTE]

It does because your contradicting yourself.

It doesn't matter when she last played there. NO show is EVER sold out. Tickets are ALWAYS available. And she's playing PETCO Park in San Diego, which is a STADIUM.

For determining demand it does. You've always emphasized the impact that "underplaying" a market has on demand when you actually do play the market. MAdonna has not played San Diego since April of 1985. You would have to be insane to believe that not playing a certain market for nearly a quarter of a century would not have any impact on the demand level when the market was finally played again.

No, they aren't. I've already gone over why. You just choose to deny the obvious. Big surprise.

The fact that Madonna did not play San Diego in 2006 or in fact has not played there since 1985 has an impact on her concert statistics in the Los Angeles market in 2006, just as whether or not she played Fresno or Atlantic City would have an impact on concert statistics for San Fran and Philadelphia.

If tickets are available, tickets are available. And they were. Period.

Tickets were not available through ticketmaster. No tickets at ticketmaster = soldout.

I'm no troll. I bring objective thought.

You obviously don't understand what a troll is. Did you read the rules of this website before you decided to become a member and abide by such rules? Look at your post history here so far. There is a common theme that runs through each post.

If a fan doesn't/can't/won't buy a ticket from scalper/broker and that ticket isn't scanned at the venue doors, that ticket isn't counted as attendance, whether it was sold or not. And hence part of the reason why scalpers/brokers contribute to an artificially elevated demand.

FALSE

Any ticket that is purchased through ticket master or what ever ticket company is doing distribution for the concert is counted in the results and the profits go to U2. Whether or not the person shows up to the actual show does not matter. Refunds are not given unless the show is cancelled or postponed. Since U2 receive the profit from the sell of the ticket, it is counted in the attendance and gross figures that are posted in the boxscore. While a scalper does technically impact sales when he purchases tickets from ticket master, whether he is able to resell those tickets has NO impact on the gross and attendance figures seen in the weekly Billboard Boxscore chart.

In order to ascertain that, you'd have to be fishing for tickets online every single minute of every single hour for 48 hours. And even if that was true, it still doesn't mean the show was sold out.

Multiple people in the area and outside the area were trying to find tickets and could not. If the venue and ticketmaster no longer have tickets that they can sell, the concert is soldout for the purposes of the attendance and gross figures that will be printed in Billboard boxscore.

Looks like you can't decide whether to admit you're wrong or not?

Wrong about you coming up with the formula's and idea's yourself, or wrong about you getting them from someone else which means you should be able to site a source or person?

Promoters did. Obviously.

What evidence do you have that Madonna told promoters in 1996 she was not going to tour until the year 2001. I challenge to find a single source prior to 1997 that shows Madonna had no plans to tour until 2001.

By using your ears. It's pretty easy.

Everyone does, but they don't share your OPINION on that issue, which is what it is.

The only fact here is, is that I've proven everything you've said above to be incorrect AND that Madonna is a larger draw than U2 is in markets they both have comparably played and is obviously worldwide too.

Do you deny claiming in the past that underplaying markets impacts the level of demand when those markets are finally played?


With Madonna, were often talking about markets she has never played or has not played in a quarter of a century.

No, what's funny is that there still is a complete contradiction. Regardless of what the actual demand level is in terms of $$$, you are trying to use the same criteria for two completely different and opposite market demand level comparisons. Or, in other words, you're typically utilizing the lowest common denominator for Madonna, while utilizing the highest common denominator for U2, even though it's the SAME example.

Big surprise...

Take Market A and Market B. How often Madonna and U2 have played each market in the past impacts the level of demand they will see when they play Market A or Market B in the current year. You've already admitted that underplaying a market impacts the level of demand when that market is finally played. For Madonna in Vancouver and Switzerland, she has not just underplayed these markets, she has never played them. Because she has never played either market, her final gross from playing each market will be substantially inflated unlike if she had played those markets the roughly dozen or so times that U2 had in the past.

IF she did not beat U2 in either market, despite not having played either market before, it does not change this basic fact that not playing the market EVER, inflates the gross that will be achieved once the market is finally played.

Nope. And what's really obvious, is that even adjusted for inflation/accumulative album sales, U2's Switzerland gross would still be around 2.5x less than Madonna's Switzerland gross!

If you would like, I can start bringing in YOUR qoutes about how underplaying the market impacts the demand levels when the market is played again.

 

[Moggio]

I was stating in reference to outside the USA/Canada if you remember. I do think U2 is close to being the larger draw especially when you consider the fact that nearly all of their shows soldout the day they were put on sale. Unlike, you, I think U2 could have grossed more than 20% of what they actually did on the Vertigo tour.

You're now actually admitting that The Stones are a larger draw than U2 are worldwide? Wow! I'm proud of you! But we've still got a LONG way to go, since you still think shows can be "sold out"...

But, try finding a qoute instead of just wildly claiming things.

The following is what you said:

Yes, U2 could've grossed more money than they've already grossed on their Vertigo tour (I'd say 10-20% more, based on the sales of their latest album, which would be around $450 million USD) but not more than what the Stones are going to wind up grossing once their A Bigger Bang tour ends next year.

Quote:
Also, there wasn't/isn't "heavy" demand for additional U2 shows but I agree they could've played to 10-20% more fans based on the sales of their current album and if they charged the same amount of money they did last year.

Quote:
U2 could not play to more than 10-20% more people in ANY market worldwide than they already have on their current tour due to the sales based on their latest studio album.

Quote:
Once again, I agree that they underplayed worldwide but only by 10-20% based on the sales of their current album.

Quote:
U2 ONLY underplayed by 10-20% for the one millionth time.

Provided you know how to read, you'll realize you never said "best case scenerio".

I've already gone over the fact that I didn't have to state it was the best case scenario because IT OBVIOUSLY WAS, SINCE I WROTE THAT ONE YEAR AFTER THE SECOND NORTH AMERICAN LEG OF THE VERTIGO TOUR ENDED. And since NO established artist's back catalogue album sales/grosses increase that much after only one year. And your posting quotes of mine several times doesn't detract from my point in any way shape or form. Get over yourself.

Really, do you have a qoute that shows you were not talking about the biggest artist on the planet like U2 and the Rolling Stones? What was the topic of the thread? Who were we talking about?

Just because I don't have a specific quote doesn't mean I wasn't talking about specific artists. If you can't see that I wasn't talking about ALL artists, I'm not surprised.

It does because your contradicting yourself.

Wrong, yet again.

For determining demand it does.

When comparing specific artists, I didn't say it didn't.

You've always emphasized the impact that "underplaying" a market has on demand when you actually do play the market.

No, you've done that. All I've done is provide logical conclusions relating to why Madonna is overall more popular worldwide than U2 is. And don't even get me started on the demand levels for Madonna & U2 in South America, Australia & Japan. Because she crushes them there.

MAdonna has not played San Diego since April of 1985. You would have to be insane to believe that not playing a certain market for nearly a quarter of a century would not have any impact on the demand level when the market was finally played again.

Where did I say that if an artist hasn't played a market for a quarter century that it doesn't have any impact on the demand level?

The fact that Madonna did not play San Diego in 2006 or in fact has not played there since 1985 has an impact on her concert statistics in the Los Angeles market in 2006, just as whether or not she played Fresno or Atlantic City would have an impact on concert statistics for San Fran and Philadelphia.

I know that. What's your point? You're confusing things here. All I'm saying is that Madonna is a larger draw than U2 is and showing you the #s ultimately proving what I'm saying. You, on the other hand, are trying to nitpick to death with your patently ridiculous reasons as to why she's not.

Tickets were not available through ticketmaster. No tickets at ticketmaster = soldout.

Wrong. Tickets were available through ticketmaster and elsewhere.

You obviously don't understand what a troll is. Did you read the rules of this website before you decided to become a member and abide by such rules? Look at your post history here so far. There is a common theme that runs through each post.

No, you obviously don't understand what a troll is. I'm a U2 fan.

FALSE

Any ticket that is purchased through ticket master or what ever ticket company is doing distribution for the concert is counted in the results and the profits go to U2. Whether or not the person shows up to the actual show does not matter. Refunds are not given unless the show is cancelled or postponed. Since U2 receive the profit from the sell of the ticket, it is counted in the attendance and gross figures that are posted in the boxscore. While a scalper does technically impact sales when he purchases tickets from ticket master, whether he is able to resell those tickets has NO impact on the gross and attendance figures seen in the weekly Billboard Boxscore chart.

If a fan doesn't/can't/won't buy a ticket from scalper/broker and that ticket isn't scanned at the venue doors, that ticket isn't counted as attendance, whether it was sold or not. And hence part of the reason why scalpers/brokers contribute to an artificially elevated demand.

Multiple people in the area and outside the area were trying to find tickets and could not. If the venue and ticketmaster no longer have tickets that they can sell, the concert is soldout for the purposes of the attendance and gross figures that will be printed in Billboard boxscore.

If they really couldn't find tickets, then they weren't looking in the right places. Tickets are ALWAYS available.

Wrong about you coming up with the formula's and idea's yourself, or wrong about you getting them from someone else which means you should be able to site a source or person?

No. Wrong about EVERY single counter view you've had.

What evidence do you have that Madonna told promoters in 1996 she was not going to tour until the year 2001. I challenge to find a single source prior to 1997 that shows Madonna had no plans to tour until 2001.

It's not needed. Eight years without touring is more than enough to figure that out. And what evidence do you have that she didn't? I challenge you to find a single source that shows she had intentions of touring after 1993, before she finally did again in 2001.

Everyone does, but they don't share your OPINION on that issue, which is what it is.

It's not my opinion. It's a fact. Big difference.

Do you deny claiming in the past that underplaying markets impacts the level of demand when those markets are finally played?

Not necessarily. It depends on who you're talking about.

With Madonna, were often talking about markets she has never played or has not played in a quarter of a century.

No, you've been mainly talking about markets that she's already played and trying to discredit her draw in comparison to U2's - which you've done a piss poor job of.

Take Market A and Market B. How often Madonna and U2 have played each market in the past impacts the level of demand they will see when they play Market A or Market B in the current year.

Probably. But that doesn't prove U2 are a larger draw than Madonna. #s would. And the numbers are on Madonna's side.

You've already admitted that underplaying a market impacts the level of demand when that market is finally played.

Not necessarily. It depends on who you're talking about.

For Madonna in Vancouver and Switzerland, she has not just underplayed these markets, she has never played them. Because she has never played either market, her final gross from playing each market will be substantially inflated unlike if she had played those markets the roughly dozen or so times that U2 had in the past.

Probably. But that doesn't prove U2 are a larger draw than Madonna. #s would. And the numbers are on Madonna's side.

IF she did not beat U2 in either market, despite not having played either market before, it does not change this basic fact that not playing the market EVER, inflates the gross that will be achieved once the market is finally played.

Probably.

But regardless of what the actual demand level is in terms of $$$, you were trying to use the same criteria for two completely different and opposite market demand level comparisons. Or, in other words, you were typically utilizing the lowest common denominator for Madonna, while utilizing the highest common denominator for U2, even though it's the SAME example.

If you would like, I can start bringing in YOUR qoutes about how underplaying the market impacts the demand levels when the market is played again.

If you would like, I could repost all the patently ridiculous statements you've made for YEARS?


Oh and btw, I forget to mention this: the reason why the Vertigo Atlanta & Denver shows grossed a higher percentage than most markets on the Vertigo tour, is that shows were not played in Jacksonville, FL, South Carolina & Salt Lake City (on the first leg), like there were on the PopMart tour. So of course, that naturally inflated Atlanta & Denver's grosses.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You're now actually admitting that The Stones are a larger draw than U2 are worldwide? Wow! I'm proud of you! But we've still got a LONG way to go, since you still think shows can be "sold out"...

Everyone who works in the concert industry understands that shows can be soldout. I've never heard anyone claim that the Police did not sellout their Shea Stadium show on August 18, 1983. The show soldout in June 1983 in under 5 hours.

I've already gone over the fact that I didn't have to state it was the best case scenario because IT OBVIOUSLY WAS, SINCE I WROTE THAT ONE YEAR AFTER THE SECOND NORTH AMERICAN LEG OF THE VERTIGO TOUR ENDED. And since NO established artist's back catalogue album sales/grosses increase that much after only one year. And your posting quotes of mine several times doesn't detract from my point in any way shape or form. Get over yourself.

You used a range of 10% to 20% to describe how much more U2 could have grossed. None of these other things are apart of what you said. Stick with the facts.

Just because I don't have a specific quote doesn't mean I wasn't talking about specific artists. If you can't see that I wasn't talking about ALL artists, I'm not surprised.

We were obviously talking about the biggest artist in the industry of which Madonna is one. But there is nothing in what you stated that would restrict it only to certain artist.

And don't even get me started on the demand levels for Madonna & U2 in South America, Australia & Japan. Because she crushes them there.

Well, I would dispute Australia. She has only been there once and her tour was roughly the same as what U2 did on ZOO TV despite the fact that U2 had already played there extensively in 1984 and 1989. Given that she has only been there once before, and the last time was 15 years ago, she has some built in advantages when or if she plays there again.

Then there is New Zealand. Another place Madonna has never played just waiting for a concert that will have a massively inflated gross from which you will claim makes her truely a bigger draw than U2 in that country.

Where did I say that if an artist hasn't played a market for a quarter century that it doesn't have any impact on the demand level?

You didn't, but you have not appreciated the role that has played in Madonna's gross levels in places like Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark etc. You've essentially ignored and pretended that her latest concert there VS. U2's latest concert there alone is an accurate comparison. Its not because U2 had played there multiple times over the years and Madonna has NEVER played there.

Wrong. Tickets were available through ticketmaster and elsewhere.

Well, then how can you explain people being unable to get tickets through ticketmaster in the days leading up to the show?

If a fan doesn't/can't/won't buy a ticket from scalper/broker and that ticket isn't scanned at the venue doors, that ticket isn't counted as attendance, whether it was sold or not. And hence part of the reason why scalpers/brokers contribute to an artificially elevated demand.

As soon as a ticket is bought on ticketmaster, that ticket is considered to have been sold. U2 gets money from the sell of that ticket. It does not matter if a the ticket was purchased by a fan or a scalper. It does not matter if the fan shows up to the show or if the scalper is able to resell the ticket. U2 still gets the money for the ticket and it is added to the attendance figure and becomes apart of the gross. There are certainly several U2 fans who were not able to go to a show at the last minute or scalpers who were not able to sell their tickets. But those tickets are still apart of U2's overall gross and attendance figures for the Vertigo Tour because they were purchased from ticketmaster or whatever ticket agency was officially selling the tickets. Promoters are not really worried about people not showing up, but they are concerned about not selling tickets. Scalpers/brokers can help inflate demand of any concert by participating with normal fans and the general public in the general sale of the tickets.

It's not my opinion. It's a fact. Big difference.

Whatever a person thinks about another artist music is an OPINION. Just because a person claims that this artist music is the best ever, or that this artist is on the cutting edge does not make it a "fact".

But regardless of what the actual demand level is in terms of $$$, you were trying to use the same criteria for two completely different and opposite market demand level comparisons. Or, in other words, you were typically utilizing the lowest common denominator for Madonna, while utilizing the highest common denominator for U2, even though it's the SAME example.

The point I was making for each market is that Madonna had inflated level of demand do to the fact she had never played either market before. You can't judge whether Madonna or U2 is the larger draw in either market based only on each artist latest performance there because U2 had played there multiple times before and Madonna had never played there.

 

[Moggio]

Everyone who works in the concert industry understands that shows can be soldout. I've never heard anyone claim that the Police did not sellout their Shea Stadium show on August 18, 1983. The show soldout in June 1983 in under 5 hours.

Since I've explicitly gone over why one hundred million times now, I guess you'll never understand that NO show is EVER technically sold out...

You used a range of 10% to 20% to describe how much more U2 could have grossed. None of these other things are apart of what you said. Stick with the facts.

Since I've explicitly gone over why one hundred million times now, I guess you'll never understand that that wasn't what I was saying.

We were obviously talking about the biggest artist in the industry of which Madonna is one. But there is nothing in what you stated that would restrict it only to certain artist.

Since I've explicitly gone over why one hundred million times now, I guess you'll never understand that that wasn't what I was saying.

Well, I would dispute Australia. She has only been there once and her tour was roughly the same as what U2 did on ZOO TV despite the fact that U2 had already played there extensively in 1984 and 1989. Given that she has only been there once before, and the last time was 15 years ago, she has some built in advantages when or if she plays there again.

Madonna played THREE stadium shows in each Sydney & Melbourne in 1993. Whereas, U2 played TWO stadium shows in each Sydney & Melbourne in 1993. And just because U2 have played there more than Madonna has doesn't prove in the least that they'd be able to outgross her...then or now.

Keep dreamin', hun...

You didn't, but you have not appreciated the role that has played in Madonna's gross levels in places like Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark etc. You've essentially ignored and pretended that her latest concert there VS. U2's latest concert there alone is an accurate comparison. Its not because U2 had played there multiple times over the years and Madonna has NEVER played there.

Not true. And you're oversimplifying your above assumption without ANY hard #s.

And of course it's an accurate comparison because concert demand changes. And CURRENTLY, at this point in time, Madonna is a larger draw than U2 is. Whereas, 15 years ago, that was not the case. You can nitpick all you want but it doesn't change that FACT.

Well, then how can you explain people being unable to get tickets through ticketmaster in the days leading up to the show?

They probably weren't online at exactly the right time.

For example, in the past five months, within one week of each show, I scored three pairs of tix: 8th row centre for Dream Theater, 11 row centre for Rush and 13th row right centre for The Black Crowes. And I even picked up a pair of Neil Diamond tix from a scalper, less than an hour before his show here last month for $120, even though the face value of the tix were $193.50. The tix were located beside the stage in the lower bowl of GM Place. And even fans who paid face value who were sitting in the balcony paid a few dollars above what I paid. And guess what? This show was listed as "sold out" in the Billboard Boxscore listings a few weeks back. Etc, etc, etc. Did I luck out? Nope. Did I know what I was doing? Yep.

As soon as a ticket is bought on ticketmaster, that ticket is considered to have been sold. U2 gets money from the sell of that ticket. It does not matter if a the ticket was purchased by a fan or a scalper. It does not matter if the fan shows up to the show or if the scalper is able to resell the ticket. U2 still gets the money for the ticket and it is added to the attendance figure and becomes apart of the gross. There are certainly several U2 fans who were not able to go to a show at the last minute or scalpers who were not able to sell their tickets. But those tickets are still apart of U2's overall gross and attendance figures for the Vertigo Tour because they were purchased from ticketmaster or whatever ticket agency was officially selling the tickets. Promoters are not really worried about people not showing up, but they are concerned about not selling tickets. Scalpers/brokers can help inflate demand of any concert by participating with normal fans and the general public in the general sale of the tickets.

If a fan doesn't/can't/won't buy a ticket from scalper/broker and that ticket isn't scanned at the venue doors, that ticket isn't counted as attendance, whether it was sold or not. And hence part of the reason why scalpers/brokers contribute to an artificially elevated demand.

Whatever a person thinks about another artist music is an OPINION. Just because a person claims that this artist music is the best ever, or that this artist is on the cutting edge does not make it a "fact".

No, an opinion is, for example, whether or not I like most of U2's music. And I like most of U2's music. So that's my opinion.

Whereas, it is a fact that U2 have done NOTHING even remotely original, innovative or cutting edge in at least ten years.

Big difference.

The point I was making for each market is that Madonna had inflated level of demand do to the fact she had never played either market before.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of factors to consider before arriving at that conclusion.

You can't judge whether Madonna or U2 is the larger draw in either market based only on each artist latest performance there because U2 had played there multiple times before and Madonna had never played there.

Yes you can.

I mean, you could use that excuse for ANY artist who has or hasn't played a market in years. And that's my point that I stated above. Here, I'll post it again:

Concert demand changes. And CURRENTLY, at this point in time, Madonna is a larger draw than U2 is. Whereas, 15 years ago, that was not the case. You can nitpick all you want but it doesn't change that FACT.

Btw, your "inflated demand" argument might've made more sense if you chose a more similar grossing market than Switzerland to compare U2 & Madonna's demand levels, since even with inflation and accumulative album sales, Madonna still grossed about 2.5x more than U2 did there. And obviously regardless if she played there ONCE or TEN times, she still would've outgrossed U2 there.

 

[hasin73]

The overall standard of people going to a U2 concert is much higher than that of Madonna. Half of the concert going public in a Madonna concert go there with the
desire to see half-naked Madonna with all her sexual trickery rather than to hear the music. And above all, U2 play almost all of their music themselves in a concert, not entirely recorded music like Madonna.

 

[genesis199125]

you're just throwing fuel to an already raging fire.....

 

[hasin73]

you're just throwing fuel to an already raging fire.....

I will jump myself into the fire if I have to for anyone trying to downsize U2.