Nowhere does it say that there are going to be 12-16 shows in the ROW, after the UK/European & North American legs are complete. Are even if there were, that probably would still not be enough for a FULL Australian leg.
It has been mentioned that the 2010 Europe leg will be 20 shows and the North American 2010 leg will be 20 shows. Thats 40 + 44 which equals 84. 100 shows has been mentioned for the total tour, so that leaves 16 more shows after 2010 legs of North America and Europe are complete at least.
If you want to spend HOURS dragging up my old quotes from other forums ( you must not have a life?) from FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, even though I’ve clearly stated to you that I’ve learned more about the concert business since then and have nailed down even more accurate way of predicting concert demand, then go right ahead.
Yes, you have learned so much more about the business, and have indeed
nailed down and even more accurate way of predicting concert demand:
The results:
MOGGIO'S Predicted concert attendance for U2 360 North American shows:
Dallas:
28,000
Charlottesville:
31,000
Raleigh NC:
31,000
Norman OK:
31,000
Houston TX:
31,000
I can just as easily point out how you used to believe that no more than 1,000 fans from a nearby market would travel to see an act live.
In some cases that is indeed true. But either way, you have never published statistics proving your point one way or the other. Boxscores come with attendance and gross figures, not where each of the attendees came from. But, if someone wanted to conduct a scientific poll outside one of the venues, one might be able to determine just how many long distance attendees there are for certain markets.
Or how you used to think that fans that lived more than 3 hours away from a market, if their market wasn’t being hit, would not travel to see an act live.
I said the majority would not travel, and you've never presented any facts to dispute that.
Or how you said that no one knows just how many people will attend an event for sure, etc., etc., etc. And we both know that’s not true.
Ok master predicter, how many fans from the Denver metro area will be at the Norman Oklahoma City concert? How will you determine that in a way that can be verifiably confirmed by others?
The Stones had NO “strategically scheduled” shows in England or Scotland.
Well, not playing the Republic of Ireland certainly helped those shows, as did not playing Belgium, only one show in the Netherlands, and only one show in Paris. So, it was a good way to BEEF up the home UK market although they still FAILED to sellout any of the shows. The fact is, markets were skipped that impacted the English and Scotish markets in a good way. Strategic scheduling.
They also had TWO Spanish shows initially scheduled but for whatever reason they were cancelled (though FOUR Spanish shows were performed on the second UK/European leg in 2007). YOU CONVENIENTLY DID NOT MENTION THESE SHOWS. So the Portugal show wasn’t “strategically scheduled”.
LOL, what do you think happens when fans in one country get all of their shows cancelled? They find another show to go to in a nearby country. Its also a good way to cover up shows that are not selling well. Cancel and postpone them until the following year, allowing other markets played on the current leg, to help contribute to their success in the following year. Strategic Scheduling, a bit late, to help beef up demand in other area's.
Not playing the Easter Block of Europe at that point in time, doesn’t mean a thing regarding meeting or not meeting demand.
Oh yes it does. Where do you think many Eastern European fans went in the summer of 2006? Those that were willing to travel helped fill shows in Germany, Austria and Italy.
Live Nation has done the same thing with Madonna. Few or any Eastern European shows on the first leg, and then a whole bunch on the 2nd leg.
I have NO idea why you’re comparing the portions of the first North American legs of the 360 & A Bigger Bang tours, as it proves NOTHING, since there was NOT ONE “strategically scheduled” show on the first leg of the A Bigger Bang tour.
Only playing 17 North American stadium shows IS as much strategic scheduling as anything you have mentioned on this rather absurd issue.
The Vertigo tour WAS NOT heavily underbooked because the way virtually the WHOLE 360 tour is “strategically scheduled” PROVES THAT IT WAS NOT. ANYONE who doesn’t even study the concert business can see that.
Does not matter! U2 360 is being scheduled based on conditions NOW, not as they were in 2005! The U2 360 tour is different in many ways. It involves a stadium show that uses a greatly expanded 360 set allowing for many more fans per stadium show. Its also being done during the worst recession since the 1930s. To huge factors that did not exist in 2005.
Again, proof is when we look at the Dallas Boxscore and compare it to your prediction of only 28,000 in attendance and find that it is WAY OFF!
Vague assumptions and theories about strategic scheduling of a tour four years later under different market conditions is proof of nothing.
But since you keep asking for a quote, here’s a chance for interference’s to see just how full of it you really are:
UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - Rolling Stones top U2 - top grossing tour (page 2)
All one has to do is read this thread beginning at page 2. There are SEVERAL interesting quotes in this thread from Maloil / STING 2 but here’s just ONE posted on December 2, 2006 at 10:33am:
“U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour.”
LOL, I'd still stand by that qoute in 2005.
REGIONS, is not the same as cities or individial markets. Your claim was all markets or cities, remember? But it is true, every region of the Vertigo tour was underbooked to a certain degree. Certainly not every market or city, but definitely every region.
Virtually the WHOLE 360 tour IS “strategically scheduled” . And that fact that you’re trying to deny that is HUGELY funny. We can go over ANY market you want. Just let me know. Also, I NEVER said that even if the 360 tour grosses $1 Billion that it wouldn’t top The Stones. If it grossed that, of course it would. If it grossed $800 million, it would too.
Ah, but I'm not denying that U2 and Live Nation have scheduled the tour in a way to bring in the maximum gross possible in an 18 month period. My point is that the Stones and Madonna do exactly the same thing. Live Nation schedules each tour in such a way as to maximize the gross.
The Stones don’t need to “strategically schedule” an ENTIRE tour like U2 now does. Why? BECAUSE THE STONES ARE A LARGER DRAW THAN U2 IS. GET IT?
Again, you could only claim A HANDFUL OF MARKETS at best where the first UK/European leg of the A Bigger Bang tour was “strategically scheduled“. Whereas virtually the WHOLE 360 tour IS.
GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
Well get this threw your head, saying the Stones are larger draw and don't use as much strategy in their scheduling does not make it so. GET IT?
The Stones only played 19 shows on their first leg, U2 are playing 24 shows and they are shows in a 360 format. Now you tell me who is being more cautious and careful with their FIRST LEG, based on that?
ANYONE who’s studied the concert business knows that a select set of formulas are utilized to determine what concert demand will be for any given artist.
Of course, because as you predicted, U2 attendance will only be the following at these shows:
Dallas: 28,000
Charlottesville: 31,000
Raleigh NC: 31,000
Norman OK: 31,000
Houston TX: 31,000
WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL?
Oh, I certainly would not try to fool a person who thinks that LIVE NATION works extra hard to strategically schedule U2 shows so as to give them a leg up on the Stones and then does not do the same for the Stones.