Biggest Grossing Tours Of All Time

[Maoilbheannacht]

Winnipeg, Edmonton, San Antonio, Eastern Tennessee, South Carolina, Southern Ohio, Western Upstate New York, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Santiago, Sao Paulo, Lima, Bogota, South Africa, etc. And dozens and dozens of others, just like other artists...

LOL, when your playing arena's, the logistics of adding these dates on tour lasting two years would have been no problem. Plus, the above list, even if it were true, pales into comparison to the demand that is still available for U2. The fact of the matter is, you don't begin to significantly exhaust demand until you start to play arena's.

The Stones did NOT saturate the worldwide market completely. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. Also, there were DOZENS of 360 tour shows that failed to sell out as well. If you want me to list them, just let me know...

THE ROLLING STONES A BIGGER BANG STATS
GROSS: $558,255,524
ATTENDANCE: 4,680,000
Average Gross: $3,903,885
Average Attendance: 32,727
Average Ticket Price: $119.29
Shows: 143
Sellouts: 82


U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE

GROSS: $519,599,484
ATTENDANCE: 5,051,275
Average Gross: $6,661,532
Average Attendance: 64,760
Average Ticket Price: $102.87
Shows: 78
Sellouts: 78

Now, everyone knows that what constitutes a sellout in these terms being able to sell whatever alotment of tickets you put on sale. U2 has succeeded in doing that 100% of the time. The Rolling Stones failed to sellout 61 of their 143 shows. In addition, think about the size of the venues being played. Look at average attendance: U2 64,760, the Stones, 32,727.

The fact is, when you fail to sellout your own set capacities on nearly 50% of the shows you play, its a clear sign that you have indeed saturated, or nearly saturated the market. Hell, the Stones failed to sellout arena's in 270 configeration in Utah and Colorado! LOL

And that's because the 360 tour is HEAVILY strategically scheduled AND has major ARENA openers. And hence it's the MOST padded tour in history.

Were talking about playing ALL STADIUMS IN 360. You clearly have yet to grasp the significance of an artist actually doing that.

In fact, lets look at how many global tours before this were actually all stadiums shows in 270, or nearly all stadium shows in 270.

1. Rolling Stones Steel Wheels 1989-1990
2. Rolling Stones Voodoo Lounge 1994-1995
3. Pink Floyd Division Bell Tour 1994
4. Genesis "I Can't Dance Tour" 1992
5. U2 POPMART Tour 1997-1998

You could add ZOO TV and Bridges To Babylon/No Security to the list, but those tours played a lot of arena's.

Why are global tours where only stadiums are played rare when played in 270 configeration? They are very difficult to do and require that enormous levels of demand for the artist to be able to successfully do them.

But what is even more amazing, is an artist that not only can do a tour like that in a 270 configeration, but is able to do it in a 360 configeration. It often takes 20% more people to fill a stadium for a concert in 360 as opposed to one just in 270.

U2 have made this jump which is huge, and until another artist does a 360 stadium tour of 110 dates and achieves a higher gross and attendance, U2 will remain the top draw on the planet.

You can't pad your gross on a concert tour when you restrict yourself to only playing stadiums. You won't be able to soak up the last remaining bits of demand until you venture into the smaller venues. Madonna and the Stones have been doing that on their most recent tours. U2 on 360 is not.

What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING? They grossed more $$$ in Chicago ALONE, that means they're a larger draw there. Get it?!

No thats incorrect. U2's 360 shows once the tour is complete will have grossed nearly $21 million in Chicago. The Stones grossed $16 million from their shows and thats with venturing into the smaller venues to soak up more demand. U2 outgrossed the Stones with just 3 shows and without utilizing the option to play smaller venues like the Stones did.

I didn't say they couldn't. It's just that it's pointless talking about it because it's a MOOT POINT. They will have already saturated Chicago on this second trip through in July because there are PLENTY of tickets still left. In fact, without HEAVY strategic scheduling, U2 would've already saturated Chicago by show #2 in 2009.

U2 will have saturated the market for STADIUM shows in the Chicago area by the time they finish with their last show in Chicago.

But that does not mean they have saturated the whole Chicago market. U2 could still play two shows at the United Center in a 270 configeration JUST LIKE THE STONES DID!

UNLESS YOUR WILLING TO SUBTRACT THE STONES SHOWS AT THE UNITED CENTER FROM THE STONES TOTAL, THEN YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT U2 COULD ALSO PLAY TWO SHOWS IN A 270 CONFIGERATION AT THE UNITED CENTER AS WELL!!!!!

I said that U2 couldn't currently play a stadium in St. Louis without the help of other nearby markets...FOR THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME. And that's EXACTLY what's happening.

You didn't express that at all in the post. The person asked you the places in North America where U2 could NOT play a stadium and you responded with your lengthy list. This was done September of 2010, so you already knew where U2 was playing and was not playing, and you described these areas as being places where there would be NO U2 SHOWS on 360 at all. There is nothing in the post that says anything about the HELP of nearby markets! You stated there could be no U2 shows in these places without any pre-conditions at all. I can copy and post it here if you like.

 

[CosmoKramer]

You didn't express that at all in the post. The person asked you the places in North America where U2 could NOT play a stadium and you responded with your lengthy list. This was done September of 2010, so you already knew where U2 was playing and was not playing, and you described these areas as being places where there would be NO U2 SHOWS on 360 at all. There is nothing in the post that says anything about the HELP of nearby markets! You stated there could be no U2 shows in these places without any pre-conditions at all. I can copy and post it here if you like.

But that is the issue with all of his logic. His formulas have been proven time and time again to be wrong and his logic is just nuts. I am surprised you even entertain his clear biased against U2. Consider:

1-You and Moggio discussed the YUI attendance total. While I was even under the impression that YUI was the top attended tour of all time, you brought facts to the table with what was officially reported. He uses a number off of a blog and tells you to prove it wrong (FYI-I am officially posting on this site that U2's War tour had attendance of 3,500,000.... prove me wrong).

2-You and Moggio have a discussion at length a couple of years back after the tour had just started and he predicts that U2 would gross 600 million MAX on their next tour (never mind that he initially predicted after the Vertigo Tour that their next tour would gross under $500 million). Now that we know U2 360 will blow away $600 million, he starts to change his logic and say that U2 will gross $600 million and he didn't mean U2's tour. Have you ever heard of someone reporting/discussing what tour's headliner grossed as opposed to the tour itself? No, that is why when he made his prediction it was about the tour not the headliner.

3-To justify his awful prediction, he goes with a theory that U2's headliners are brining in 10% of the gross. How you or anyone else hasn't called BS on this prior is beyond me. His formula is something my nephew could put together Total gross*.9%=artists gross... I guess Florence and the Machine pull the same % as Metallica or DMB.

Several pages back he stated U2 360 will gross $740 million, so U2 will gross $660 million, that would imply that he used his super complex formula across the board. So he is stating that U2 would have sold 10% less tickets in Dublin, Paris, Spain, South Africa, NY, LA, Boston, Montreal x2, Mexico & Brazil x3 when we know good and well that U2 could sell those tickets with me opening the show on guitar, BVS on bass and you on lead vocals.

Lets take that a step further, he then writes that he based his prediction on 90-100 shows. Yet, he has never mentioned this "cap" when making predictions in the past(only in the past year he has stated with this) about U2 or any other artists. I thought his formulas can predict an artists draw in all regions and in turn if they could play a show there?

3-I provide a post where he states clear as day that U2 could not sell out stadiums in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Winnipeg & Tennessee. I provide the EXACT quote that mentions nothing about help doing this, just that they do not have "a chance in hell" of selling out a stadium and he lies about the quote.

4-According to Moggio, when U2 doesn't play dates in certain areas, its because they "dont have a chance in hell of selling out a stadium" in those areas. When Madonna doesn't tour certain areas, its because of "personal reasons".

5-BEP in 2006 played to 12k fans over two shows at a theater in the LA market. You said they did not fill an arena in the LA market, which is a fact. He writes that if they played one show they would have filled an arena, which is a fantasy because it didn't happen. Apparently, only U2 fans go to multiple shows and travel, so those are 12k unique fans.

He will write that we are delusional U2 fans but every time you, me or anyone else gives him facts, he comes back with fantasy or "if" this or "if" that. When it comes to U2 it has to be facts only but any other artist is "if" and "when".

The only formula he has that works for him is that he will pull line by line quotes from posts that prove him wrong and answer that quote with a question of his own that usually has nothing to do with the initial quote or is a copy and paste of a line he used 10 pages back that is wrong to begin with.


Bottom line:

U2 360 will be the highest grossing tour-FACT
U2 360 will be the highest grossing tour adjusted for inflation-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest gross per show of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest gross per show adjusted for inflation of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest attendance per show of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will be the highest attended tour in history-FACT

If someone should choose to pull the above quotes to counter them, please end your line with "I think" and not "Fact" (i.e. Pink Floyd is a bigger draw then U2-I think)

 

[CosmoKramer]

Lets take that a step further, he then writes that he based his prediction on 90-100 shows. Yet, he has never mentioned this "cap" when making predictions in the past(only in the past year he has stated with this) about U2 or any other artists. I thought his formulas can predict an artists draw in all regions and in turn if they could play a show there?

I must admit when I am wrong and I was mistaken. Moggio did use the 100 date "cap" further back then a year ago, he used it two years ago in the following link:
UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - Most Successful Tours (page 8)

When asked what U2's next tour would gross (notice the word TOUR not artist), a poster wrote $600 million (they must know more then Moggio). the following was Moggio's response to the $600 million figure:


"Definitely not.

A 100 date tour would gross close to $400 million.

----------------------------

A 100 date Pink Floyd tour would gross over $500 million..."

So, Moggio wrote that U2 360 would gross $400 million in 100 dates but in reality U2 360 will gross closer to $660 million. But we are supposed to believe that "Strategic Scheduling" aka a business model increased the gross by more then 65%!!

 

[Moggio]

No, here's the funny part... I don't give a shit about ticket sales. Honestly I couldn't care less, it means nothing to me about an artist.

Here's the even funnier part: considering the above, you continue posting this thread despite the fact you know nothing about the subject.

But my 5th grade niece could tear apart the "logic" in some of your arguments.

But since you don't know anything about this subject, how would you know if that was true or not, even if it was?

You're nothing but a troll. It's why you stopped posting in other forums, you couldn't handle it.

No. I bring realism and objectivity to this forum. Because it's DESPERATELY needed.

 

[Moggio]

What evidence do you have that Muse's popularity significantly increased from August 2007 to September 2009? Remember, were looking for evidence from August 2007 through September 2009.

Review and compare their boxscores and tour history from 2007 and 2010. In 2007, they grossed over $600,000 from ONE ARENA show. However, last year, they played THREE ARENA shows there and grossed nearly $2 million in total. So their demand there basically TRIPLED in only three years. So their demand in Metro NYC in 2009 would be between over $600,000 and nearly $2 million. And we both damn well know that Muse's draw didn't TRIPLE in just one calendar year's time from 2009 to 2010. But YOU KNOW THAT. You're just trying to blue the lines, as usual.

Who do you think you're trying to fool?

Well, I got to the figure of 3.3% by dividing Muse's max gross on the last tour before opening for U2 in the New York area, by U2's total gross for the two shows at Giant Stadium which Muse opened. I figured that at best, they would not bring in MORE than what they brought in by themselves to the shows. That figure was $536,893 or 3.3% of $16,128,950 figure. You claim, based on your 10% theory, that Muse would have brought in $1,612,895 to the U2 !? Thats more than three times what they grossed on their last stop in New York by themselves! LOL

With a figure like that at $44 dollars a ticket, Muse would have soldout in 360 two shows at Madison Square Garden with nearly 37,000 in attendance for the two shows, instead of just one show with just 12,004 people in attendance.

To this day, Muse is still not playing arena's in 360 and back to back nights in the same city, but according to your 10% rule they should be, at least in New York City.

I wish I had examined this arbitrary 10% rule more closely. I didn't realize how inaccurate it was.

The only thing "inaccurate" here is your typical lowball estimations when dealing with any other artists, apart from U2. See my previous post.

 

[cobl04]

My money is on Moggio, by TKO, after nine rounds.

 

[No spoken words]

I think that if you look at weight, height, reach, etc, they're evenly matched.....but the big difference is, of course, that nobody, and I mean nobody, uses smileys like Moggio. Add to that the fact that Moggio brings realism and objectivity to the proceedings and, yes, it's clear that Moggio is the favorite and a 9th round TKO is not far-fetched at all.

 

[cobl04]

Moggio will also be fighting in the blue corner...

 

[Moggio]

LOL, when your playing arena's, the logistics of adding these dates on tour lasting two years would have been no problem. Plus, the above list, even if it were true, pales into comparison to the demand that is still available for U2.

It IS true. And you STILL don't get the point? Which is that there was still PLENTY of demand to see The Stones on their A Bigger Bang tour in other markets, just like ANY other artist, since you can't play EVERY market on earth per tour, for more than obvious reasons.

The fact of the matter is, you don't begin to significantly exhaust demand until you start to play arena's.

That's NOT necessarily true.

THE ROLLING STONES A BIGGER BANG STATS
GROSS: $558,255,524
ATTENDANCE: 4,680,000
Average Gross: $3,903,885
Average Attendance: 32,727
Average Ticket Price: $119.29
Shows: 143
Sellouts: 82


U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE

GROSS: $519,599,484
ATTENDANCE: 5,051,275
Average Gross: $6,661,532
Average Attendance: 64,760
Average Ticket Price: $102.87
Shows: 78
Sellouts: 78

Now, everyone knows that what constitutes a sellout in these terms being able to sell whatever alotment of tickets you put on sale. U2 has succeeded in doing that 100% of the time. The Rolling Stones failed to sellout 61 of their 143 shows. In addition, think about the size of the venues being played. Look at average attendance: U2 64,760, the Stones, 32,727.

You can continue to blur the lines all you want, but the FACT is that Stones' did NOT utilize heavy strategic scheduling, nor did they pad their grosses as much as U2 are currently with their choice of openers. That and there were and still are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TICKETS AVAILABLE to MANY 360 tour shows. And THAT makes a difference. In fact, if U2 didn't strategically schedule and utilize the openers they did, their average attendance/gross would basically be 2/3 of what it is in just about every market. But YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT.

The fact is, when you fail to sellout your own set capacities on nearly 50% of the shows you play, its a clear sign that you have indeed saturated, or nearly saturated the market.

That's not necessarily true.

Hell, the Stones failed to sellout arena's in 270 configeration in Utah and Colorado! LOL

Just like U2 couldn't sell out about 8-10 arenas in North America on the 2001 Elevation tour and skipped a SHITLOAD of markets on the 360 tour because they knew they couldn't fill and/or sell out certain stadiums, without strategic scheduling.

Were talking about playing ALL STADIUMS IN 360. You clearly have yet to grasp the significance of an artist actually doing that.

In fact, lets look at how many global tours before this were actually all stadiums shows in 270, or nearly all stadium shows in 270.

1. Rolling Stones Steel Wheels 1989-1990
2. Rolling Stones Voodoo Lounge 1994-1995
3. Pink Floyd Division Bell Tour 1994
4. Genesis "I Can't Dance Tour" 1992
5. U2 POPMART Tour 1997-1998

You could add ZOO TV and Bridges To Babylon/No Security to the list, but those tours played a lot of arena's.

Why are global tours where only stadiums are played rare when played in 270 configeration? They are very difficult to do and require that enormous levels of demand for the artist to be able to successfully do them.

But what is even more amazing, is an artist that not only can do a tour like that in a 270 configeration, but is able to do it in a 360 configeration. It often takes 20% more people to fill a stadium for a concert in 360 as opposed to one just in 270.

You clearly STILL don't realize (or you’re evading?) that a 360 stadium tour is a NEW BUSINESS MODEL and that U2 are only pulling it off because of HEAVY strategic scheduling and the utilization of very strong openers. Again, if U2 didn't strategically schedule and utilize very strong openers, their average attendance/gross would basically be 2/3 of what it is in just about every market. But YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT. So why do you continue acting like that’s not the case?

U2 have made this jump which is huge, and until another artist does a 360 stadium tour of 110 dates and achieves a higher gross and attendance, U2 will remain the top draw on the planet.

EARTH TO MAOIL: OVERALL, THE ROLLING STONES ARE STILL THE LARGEST DRAWING ACTIVE BAND IN THE WORLD, WITH OR WITHOUT A 360 STADIUM TOUR. AND THAT’S BECAUSE DEMAND IS DETERMINED BY $$$ TICKET SALES GROSSES $$$, NOT VENUE SIZE OR CHOICE.

You can't pad your gross on a concert tour when you restrict yourself to only playing stadiums. You won't be able to soak up the last remaining bits of demand until you venture into the smaller venues.

U2 can and have padded the 360 tour, for reasons already discussed. In fact, it's THE most padded concert tour in history.

Madonna and the Stones have been doing that on their most recent tours. U2 on 360 is not.

As I’ve already shown, there was PLENTY of demand left for both artists overall on their previous tours. So what you’re saying is NOT the case.

No thats incorrect. U2's 360 shows once the tour is complete will have grossed nearly $21 million in Chicago. The Stones grossed $16 million from their shows and thats with venturing into the smaller venues to soak up more demand. U2 outgrossed the Stones with just 3 shows and without utilizing the option to play smaller venues like the Stones did.

U2 will have saturated the market for STADIUM shows in the Chicago area by the time they finish with their last show in Chicago.

Definitely not. WITHOUT U2’s HEAVY utilization of strategic scheduling: a) U2 already would've already saturated the Chicago market by show #2 and b) The Stones’ grossed more $$$ in Chicago ALONE than U2. Why are you ignoring that?

But that does not mean they have saturated the whole Chicago market. U2 could still play two shows at the United Center in a 270 configeration JUST LIKE THE STONES DID!

No, U2 could play only ONE show at the United Center, if the prices were basically the same, and if they returned in September of this year, like you initially stated.

UNLESS YOUR WILLING TO SUBTRACT THE STONES SHOWS AT THE UNITED CENTER FROM THE STONES TOTAL, THEN YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT U2 COULD ALSO PLAY TWO SHOWS IN A 270 CONFIGERATION AT THE UNITED CENTER AS WELL!!!!!

Once again, that’s INCORRECT.

You didn't express that at all in the post. The person asked you the places in North America where U2 could NOT play a stadium and you responded with your lengthy list. This was done September of 2010, so you already knew where U2 was playing and was not playing, and you described these areas as being places where there would be NO U2 SHOWS on 360 at all. There is nothing in the post that says anything about the HELP of nearby markets! You stated there could be no U2 shows in these places without any pre-conditions at all. I can copy and post it here if you like.

That’s NOT true at all. Not all the second North American leg dates were announced yet. And since you were a part of the above discuss on the aforementioned site, you know I was already talking about what U2’s draw was in certain markets FOR MONTHS BEFOREHAND.

 

[Moggio]

But that is the issue with all of his logic. His formulas have been proven time and time again to be wrong and his logic is just nuts. I am surprised you even entertain his clear biased against U2. Consider:

1-You and Moggio discussed the YUI attendance total. While I was even under the impression that YUI was the top attended tour of all time, you brought facts to the table with what was officially reported. He uses a number off of a blog and tells you to prove it wrong (FYI-I am officially posting on this site that U2's War tour had attendance of 3,500,000.... prove me wrong).

2-You and Moggio have a discussion at length a couple of years back after the tour had just started and he predicts that U2 would gross 600 million MAX on their next tour (never mind that he initially predicted after the Vertigo Tour that their next tour would gross under $500 million). Now that we know U2 360 will blow away $600 million, he starts to change his logic and say that U2 will gross $600 million and he didn't mean U2's tour. Have you ever heard of someone reporting/discussing what tour's headliner grossed as opposed to the tour itself? No, that is why when he made his prediction it was about the tour not the headliner.

3-To justify his awful prediction, he goes with a theory that U2's headliners are brining in 10% of the gross. How you or anyone else hasn't called BS on this prior is beyond me. His formula is something my nephew could put together Total gross*.9%=artists gross... I guess Florence and the Machine pull the same % as Metallica or DMB.

Several pages back he stated U2 360 will gross $740 million, so U2 will gross $660 million, that would imply that he used his super complex formula across the board. So he is stating that U2 would have sold 10% less tickets in Dublin, Paris, Spain, South Africa, NY, LA, Boston, Montreal x2, Mexico & Brazil x3 when we know good and well that U2 could sell those tickets with me opening the show on guitar, BVS on bass and you on lead vocals.

Lets take that a step further, he then writes that he based his prediction on 90-100 shows. Yet, he has never mentioned this "cap" when making predictions in the past(only in the past year he has stated with this) about U2 or any other artists. I thought his formulas can predict an artists draw in all regions and in turn if they could play a show there?

3-I provide a post where he states clear as day that U2 could not sell out stadiums in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Winnipeg & Tennessee. I provide the EXACT quote that mentions nothing about help doing this, just that they do not have "a chance in hell" of selling out a stadium and he lies about the quote.

4-According to Moggio, when U2 doesn't play dates in certain areas, its because they "dont have a chance in hell of selling out a stadium" in those areas. When Madonna doesn't tour certain areas, its because of "personal reasons".

5-BEP in 2006 played to 12k fans over two shows at a theater in the LA market. You said they did not fill an arena in the LA market, which is a fact. He writes that if they played one show they would have filled an arena, which is a fantasy because it didn't happen. Apparently, only U2 fans go to multiple shows and travel, so those are 12k unique fans.

He will write that we are delusional U2 fans but every time you, me or anyone else gives him facts, he comes back with fantasy or "if" this or "if" that. When it comes to U2 it has to be facts only but any other artist is "if" and "when".

The only formula he has that works for him is that he will pull line by line quotes from posts that prove him wrong and answer that quote with a question of his own that usually has nothing to do with the initial quote or is a copy and paste of a line he used 10 pages back that is wrong to begin with.


Bottom line:

U2 360 will be the highest grossing tour-FACT
U2 360 will be the highest grossing tour adjusted for inflation-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest gross per show of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest gross per show adjusted for inflation of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest attendance per show of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will be the highest attended tour in history-FACT

If someone should choose to pull the above quotes to counter them, please end your line with "I think" and not "Fact" (i.e. Pink Floyd is a bigger draw then U2-I think)

I must admit when I am wrong and I was mistaken. Moggio did use the 100 date "cap" further back then a year ago, he used it two years ago in the following link:
UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - Most Successful Tours (page 8)

When asked what U2's next tour would gross (notice the word TOUR not artist), a poster wrote $600 million (they must know more then Moggio). the following was Moggio's response to the $600 million figure:


"Definitely not.

A 100 date tour would gross close to $400 million.

----------------------------

A 100 date Pink Floyd tour would gross over $500 million..."

So, Moggio wrote that U2 360 would gross $400 million in 100 dates but in reality U2 360 will gross closer to $660 million. But we are supposed to believe that "Strategic Scheduling" aka a business model increased the gross by more then 65%!!

More lies, spins, misquotes and manipulations from CosmoKramer. BIG SURPRISE. The most hilarious thing about your post, is that it seems like you actually think you know ANYTHING about the concert business or how concert demand works. I've already gone over ALL of the above with you explicitly MANY times, yet you KEEP posting this OUT OF CONTEXT garbage and ignore my rebuttals to it.

Why is that?

You should start responding to my rebuttals from previous pages in this thread instead of throwing the SAME arguments and statements at me that have long since proven to be BS. And then, maybe, just maybe, I'll start to take what you say seriously...

...but I think we both know why you're not going to do that...

 

[U2DMfan]

Fitting that STING2 started this thread.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

But that is the issue with all of his logic. His formulas have been proven time and time again to be wrong and his logic is just nuts. I am surprised you even entertain his clear biased against U2. Consider:

1-You and Moggio discussed the YUI attendance total. While I was even under the impression that YUI was the top attended tour of all time, you brought facts to the table with what was officially reported. He uses a number off of a blog and tells you to prove it wrong (FYI-I am officially posting on this site that U2's War tour had attendance of 3,500,000.... prove me wrong).

2-You and Moggio have a discussion at length a couple of years back after the tour had just started and he predicts that U2 would gross 600 million MAX on their next tour (never mind that he initially predicted after the Vertigo Tour that their next tour would gross under $500 million). Now that we know U2 360 will blow away $600 million, he starts to change his logic and say that U2 will gross $600 million and he didn't mean U2's tour. Have you ever heard of someone reporting/discussing what tour's headliner grossed as opposed to the tour itself? No, that is why when he made his prediction it was about the tour not the headliner.

3-To justify his awful prediction, he goes with a theory that U2's headliners are brining in 10% of the gross. How you or anyone else hasn't called BS on this prior is beyond me. His formula is something my nephew could put together Total gross*.9%=artists gross... I guess Florence and the Machine pull the same % as Metallica or DMB.

Several pages back he stated U2 360 will gross $740 million, so U2 will gross $660 million, that would imply that he used his super complex formula across the board. So he is stating that U2 would have sold 10% less tickets in Dublin, Paris, Spain, South Africa, NY, LA, Boston, Montreal x2, Mexico & Brazil x3 when we know good and well that U2 could sell those tickets with me opening the show on guitar, BVS on bass and you on lead vocals.

Lets take that a step further, he then writes that he based his prediction on 90-100 shows. Yet, he has never mentioned this "cap" when making predictions in the past(only in the past year he has stated with this) about U2 or any other artists. I thought his formulas can predict an artists draw in all regions and in turn if they could play a show there?

3-I provide a post where he states clear as day that U2 could not sell out stadiums in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Winnipeg & Tennessee. I provide the EXACT quote that mentions nothing about help doing this, just that they do not have "a chance in hell" of selling out a stadium and he lies about the quote.

4-According to Moggio, when U2 doesn't play dates in certain areas, its because they "dont have a chance in hell of selling out a stadium" in those areas. When Madonna doesn't tour certain areas, its because of "personal reasons".

5-BEP in 2006 played to 12k fans over two shows at a theater in the LA market. You said they did not fill an arena in the LA market, which is a fact. He writes that if they played one show they would have filled an arena, which is a fantasy because it didn't happen. Apparently, only U2 fans go to multiple shows and travel, so those are 12k unique fans.

He will write that we are delusional U2 fans but every time you, me or anyone else gives him facts, he comes back with fantasy or "if" this or "if" that. When it comes to U2 it has to be facts only but any other artist is "if" and "when".

The only formula he has that works for him is that he will pull line by line quotes from posts that prove him wrong and answer that quote with a question of his own that usually has nothing to do with the initial quote or is a copy and paste of a line he used 10 pages back that is wrong to begin with.


Bottom line:

U2 360 will be the highest grossing tour-FACT
U2 360 will be the highest grossing tour adjusted for inflation-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest gross per show of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest gross per show adjusted for inflation of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest attendance per show of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will be the highest attended tour in history-FACT

If someone should choose to pull the above quotes to counter them, please end your line with "I think" and not "Fact" (i.e. Pink Floyd is a bigger draw then U2-I think)

Those are some fantastic points. Thanks for summing them up.

But I must say, this was my favorite one:

Several pages back he stated U2 360 will gross $740 million, so U2 will gross $660 million, that would imply that he used his super complex formula across the board. So he is stating that U2 would have sold 10% less tickets in Dublin, Paris, Spain, South Africa, NY, LA, Boston, Montreal x2, Mexico & Brazil x3 when we know good and well that U2 could sell those tickets with me opening the show on guitar, BVS on bass and you on lead vocals.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I must admit when I am wrong and I was mistaken. Moggio did use the 100 date "cap" further back then a year ago, he used it two years ago in the following link:
UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - Most Successful Tours (page 8)

When asked what U2's next tour would gross (notice the word TOUR not artist), a poster wrote $600 million (they must know more then Moggio). the following was Moggio's response to the $600 million figure:


"Definitely not.

A 100 date tour would gross close to $400 million.

----------------------------

A 100 date Pink Floyd tour would gross over $500 million..."

So, Moggio wrote that U2 360 would gross $400 million in 100 dates but in reality U2 360 will gross closer to $660 million. But we are supposed to believe that "Strategic Scheduling" aka a business model increased the gross by more then 65%!!

One thing that should be noted is that even if we did take MOGGIO's ideas about strategic scheduling as seriously as he does, it only involves Europe, United States and Canada. There was no strategic scheduling involved with Australia, New Zealand, South America, Mexico, or South Africa. U2 brought in over $150 million in gross from those area's alone.

With that in mind, the $400 million prediction looks even more absurd.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Review and compare their boxscores and tour history from 2007 and 2010. In 2007, they grossed over $600,000 from ONE ARENA show. However, last year, they played THREE ARENA shows there and grossed nearly $2 million in total. So their demand there basically TRIPLED in only three years. So their demand in Metro NYC in 2009 would be between over $600,000 and nearly $2 million. And we both damn well know that Muse's draw didn't TRIPLE in just one calendar year's time from 2009 to 2010. But YOU KNOW THAT. You're just trying to blue the lines, as usual.

Who do you think you're trying to fool?



The only thing "inaccurate" here is your typical lowball estimations when dealing with any other artists, apart from U2. See my previous post.

1. Even if we took that formula seriously, the average would only be 1.3 million which is still less than your 10% claim.

2. Muse played at Giants Stadium opening for U2 in September 2009. Your suggesting by the above formula that their popularity DOUBLED between August 2007 and September 2009.

So let me ask you this, how did MUSE, double their popularity in between August 2007 and September 2009?

Since you usually tie such things to album sales, do you have ANY evidence that Muse's album sales doubled or even went up 50% in that time frame?

3. Have you considered that opening for U2 HELPED Muse reach NEW fans which in turn led to better results in the New York area, 6 months later in 2010 as well as a full year later in late 2010.

4. How come Muse only played one show at Madison Square Garden in March 2010? I mean, since they were more popular like you said by then, why did they only book one show like they did on their last leg in 2007?

If anything, that shows their popularity was still building and not nearly at the level you claim it to be.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Just like U2 couldn't sell out about 8-10 arenas in North America on the 2001 Elevation tour and skipped a SHITLOAD of markets on the 360 tour because they knew they couldn't fill and/or sell out certain stadiums, without strategic scheduling.

:

LOL, skipped markets they couldn't fill eh, what like St. Louis, Winnipeg, Western Pennsylvania, Tennessee? Their all on your list.

If the Rolling Stones are the most popular band in the world, how come they can't sellout a single arena show in Denver? It will be funny to compare U2's 360 boxscore for Denver to the Stones A Bigger Bang Boxscore for Denver.

But you have to go back 10 years to a time when U2 was recovering from the down turn in popularity they experienced with POP. Both bands have more recent tours, ie more relevant information to make a comparison or assessment.

You clearly STILL don't realize (or you’re evading?) that a 360 stadium tour is a NEW BUSINESS MODEL and that U2 are only pulling it off because of HEAVY strategic scheduling and the utilization of very strong openers. Again, if U2 didn't strategically schedule and utilize very strong openers, their average attendance/gross would basically be 2/3 of what it is in just about every market. But YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT. So why do you continue acting like that’s not the case?



EARTH TO MAOIL: OVERALL, THE ROLLING STONES ARE STILL THE LARGEST DRAWING ACTIVE BAND IN THE WORLD, WITH OR WITHOUT A 360 STADIUM TOUR. AND THAT’S BECAUSE DEMAND IS DETERMINED BY $$$ TICKET SALES GROSSES $$$, NOT VENUE SIZE OR CHOICE.
.[/COLOR][/FONT]

Ok Moggio, then I don't wan't to hear any crying or changing of that logic if the Stones decide to do just 110 dates on their next tour IN ARENA's ONLY!

Don't tell us the Stones were unable to reach $850 million in gross because they didn't have any shows in stadiums.

Remember, the Stones can reach that gross in 110 dates in arena's, because "venue size has no impact on demand".



Remember, your prediction for the Stones on their next tour is $850 million from 110 dates.

Your prediction for Madonna is $900 million from 110 dates.

Remember no crying about Stadiums because according to you, stadiums don't matter.

U2 can and have padded the 360 tour, for reasons already discussed. In fact, it's THE most padded concert tour in history.
d

Oh and thats because of the NEW business model of strategic scheduling. Well, guess what its NOT new anymore, and whatever strategies live nation has to maximize an artist gross, they are using for EVERYONE!

Which I guess means as of 2010, every artist promoted by Live Nation has a padded tour! LOL

Oh yes, then there are the openers. EVERYONE remember that Snow Patrol, interpol, and Florence In The Machine are mega arena acts in North America! LOL

Definitely not. WITHOUT U2’s HEAVY utilization of strategic scheduling: a) U2 already would've already saturated the Chicago market by show #2 and b) The Stones’ grossed more $$$ in Chicago ALONE than U2. Why are you ignoring that?



No, U2 could play only ONE show at the United Center, if the prices were basically the same, and if they returned in September of this year, like you initially state

1. I've not heard that the Stones had no openers for their first shows in Chicago. That would be unusual for the Stones not to have an opener.

2. Snow Patrol only contributed at best $150,000 to the two U2 shows, about what they grossed on their tour stop in Chicago before that which was at a 3,000 seat theater for the new album. Considering the gross was $13.8 million, what Snow Patrol brought in if anything was irrelevant.

3. U2 has another show to go, and the first two shows on a single stop was only a little less than the Rolling Stones 4 shows on 3 stops.


4. U2 will play to 65,000 fans in Chicago this summer at their 360 show. If were to believe you, there would only be 15,000 fans willing to see them in an arena show in September? I don't think so. In fact, I bet they could play soldier field one more time with 33,000 in attendance for their fourth show, just like the Stones did! They won't do that though because a stadium 360 show with only 33,000 people would look rather empty.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang EUROPE vs. U2 360 EUROPE:

THE ROLLING STONES - A BIGGER BANG TOUR FIRST LEG EUROPE STATS
GROSS: $95,797,952
ATTENDANCE: 909,229
Average Gross: $5,041,998
Average Attendance: 47,854
Average Ticket Price: $105.36
Shows: 19
Sellouts: 1

THE ROLLING STONES - A BIGGER BANG TOUR SECOND LEG EUROPE STATS
GROSS: $120,296,540
ATTENDANCE: 1,074,765
Average Gross: $4,009,885
Average Attendance: 35,826
Average Ticket Price: $111.93
Shows: 30
Sellouts: 2




U2 360 TOUR: 1ST LEG EUROPE STATS
GROSS: $188,344,444
ATTENDANCE: 1,759,222
Average Gross: $7,847,685
Average Attendance: 73,301
Average Ticket Price: $107.06
Shows: 24
Sellouts: 24

U2 360 TOUR: 2ND LEG EUROPE STATS
GROSS: $131,502,367
ATTENDANCE: 1,312,784
Average Gross: $5,977,385
Average Attendance: 59,672
Average Ticket Price: $100.17
Shows: 22
Sellouts: 22




U2 360 TOTAL GROSS AND ATTENDANCE EUROPE:
GROSS: $319,846,811
ATTENDANCE: 3,072,006

THE ROLLING STONES BIGGER BANG TOTAL GROSS AND ATTENDANCE EUROPE:
GROSS: $216,094,492
ATTENDANCE: 1,983,994


DAMN, the Stones really got their butts kicked in Europe by U2. What do you think the Stones will gross on their next tour in Europe MOGGIO?

 

[CosmoKramer]

The most hilarious thing about your post, is that it seems like you actually think you know ANYTHING about the concert business or how concert demand works.

how did that $400 million tour prediction work out for you. But you're an "expert" right.....

 

[CosmoKramer]

More lies, spins, misquotes and manipulations from CosmoKramer. BIG SURPRISE. The most hilarious thing about your post, is that it seems like you actually think you know ANYTHING about the concert business or how concert demand works. I've already gone over ALL of the above with you explicitly MANY times, yet you KEEP posting this OUT OF CONTEXT garbage and ignore my rebuttals to it.

Misquote? Nope, it was a direct quote and I provided a link to the page.
Out of context? Let's me simplify the context for you because you don't seem to understand it. Someone asked "what do you think U2's next TOUR will gross". Another person responded "$600 million". You then replied to the question posed with "definitely not, a 100 date tour would gross CLOSE to $400 million".

Now you were right in that what you posted was "garbage" but that was your description of what you wrote, not mine. It seems every statement you write turns out to be "out of context" when you are proven to be wrong.

 

[Moggio]

One thing that should be noted is that even if we did take MOGGIO's ideas about strategic scheduling as seriously as he does, it only involves Europe, United States and Canada. There was no strategic scheduling involved with Australia, New Zealand, South America, Mexico, or South Africa. U2 brought in over $150 million in gross from those area's alone.

With that in mind, the $400 million prediction looks even more absurd.

You must be joking?!

There's PLENTY of HEAVY strategic scheduling for the 360 tour dates in Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and South America. And btw, you AGREED with the FACT that U2 are utilizing strategic scheduling.

 

[Moggio]

1. Even if we took that formula seriously, the average would only be 1.3 million which is still less than your 10% claim.

2. Muse played at Giants Stadium opening for U2 in September 2009. Your suggesting by the above formula that their popularity DOUBLED between August 2007 and September 2009.

So let me ask you this, how did MUSE, double their popularity in between August 2007 and September 2009?

Since you usually tie such things to album sales, do you have ANY evidence that Muse's album sales doubled or even went up 50% in that time frame?

3. Have you considered that opening for U2 HELPED Muse reach NEW fans which in turn led to better results in the New York area, 6 months later in 2010 as well as a full year later in late 2010.

4. How come Muse only played one show at Madison Square Garden in March 2010? I mean, since they were more popular like you said by then, why did they only book one show like they did on their last leg in 2007?

If anything, that shows their popularity was still building and not nearly at the level you claim it to be.

Wtf are you talking about?!

It's not less than 10% considering U2's NYC/NJ shows in 2009 were strategically scheduled because of no Philadelphia show that year.

Also, the evidence clearly shows Muse's draw basically DOUBLED in the US between 2007 and 2009. This is because because their album sales in the US basically DOUBLED in only those few years. Duh! Not only that but again, Muse did NOT only play ONE ARENA show in Metro NYC in 2010, they played THREE ARENA shows there in 2010 and grossed nearly $2 million.

Who are you trying to fool?

 

[Moggio]

LOL, skipped markets they couldn't fill eh, what like St. Louis, Winnipeg, Western Pennsylvania, Tennessee? Their all on your list.

ONCE AGAIN: WITHOUT STRATEGIC SCHEDULING, U2 WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FILL AND OR SELL OUT THOSE MARKETS. THE DISCUSSION ON THAT FORUM WENT ON FOR MONTHS BEFOREHAND, WHERE I EXPLICITLY WENT OVER THAT.

If the Rolling Stones are the most popular band in the world, how come they can't sellout a single arena show in Denver? It will be funny to compare U2's 360 boxscore for Denver to the Stones A Bigger Bang Boxscore for Denver.

Congratulations! You've found one of the few markets that U2 actually can outdraw The Stones in North America.

But you know what would be even funnier? Is how full almost every 360 tour date would look if it wasn't strategically scheduled and did not utilize strong openers to help sell tix. We're talking basically 2/3 capacity...

But you have to go back 10 years to a time when U2 was recovering from the down turn in popularity they experienced with POP. Both bands have more recent tours, ie more relevant information to make a comparison or assessment.

And your point is?

Ok Moggio, then I don't wan't to hear any crying or changing of that logic if the Stones decide to do just 110 dates on their next tour IN ARENA's ONLY!

Don't tell us the Stones were unable to reach $850 million in gross because they didn't have any shows in stadiums.

Remember, the Stones can reach that gross in 110 dates in arena's, because "venue size has no impact on demand".


Remember, your prediction for the Stones on their next tour is $850 million from 110 dates.

Your prediction for Madonna is $900 million from 110 dates.

Remember no crying about Stadiums because according to you, stadiums don't matter.

The criteria I agreed to has NOTHING to do with venue size. It has to with with gross dollars, 110 dates, strategic scheduling and the use of strong openers. REMEMBER THAT.

Oh and thats because of the NEW business model of strategic scheduling. Well, guess what its NOT new anymore, and whatever strategies live nation has to maximize an artist gross, they are using for EVERYONE!

Which I guess means as of 2010, every artist promoted by Live Nation has a padded tour! LOL

That's not necessarily true.

Oh yes, then there are the openers. EVERYONE remember that Snow Patrol, interpol, and Florence In The Machine are mega arena acts in North America! LOL

I never said they were, genius.

1. I've not heard that the Stones had no openers for their first shows in Chicago. That would be unusual for the Stones not to have an opener.

2. Snow Patrol only contributed at best $150,000 to the two U2 shows, about what they grossed on their tour stop in Chicago before that which was at a 3,000 seat theater for the new album. Considering the gross was $13.8 million, what Snow Patrol brought in if anything was irrelevant.

3. U2 has another show to go, and the first two shows on a single stop was only a little less than the Rolling Stones 4 shows on 3 stops.

4. U2 will play to 65,000 fans in Chicago this summer at their 360 show. If were to believe you, there would only be 15,000 fans willing to see them in an arena show in September? I don't think so. In fact, I bet they could play soldier field one more time with 33,000 in attendance for their fourth show, just like the Stones did! They won't do that though because a stadium 360 show with only 33,000 people would look rather empty.

1. I don't know.

2. AGAIN, that's debatable.

3. A little less? LOL! Considering U2's use of HEAVY strategic scheduling, that's pretty funny. Regardless, that does NOTHING to detract from my previous points regarding this issue.

4. Why would you think U2 could draw 50% of the STADIUM demand in Chicago for an ARENA show only TWO MONTHS after drawing 50% of the demand from the two Chicago STADIUM shows nearly TWO YEARS before? At best, it would be 20-25%, and hence, they'd only be able to play ONE ARENA show in Chicago, if they returned there again in September of this year, at similar prices.

5. You forgot to include the FACT that the ONLY Midwest shows in 2009 were in Chicago and that's the reason why they grossed $13.8 million. Without stragetic scheduling, that $13.8 million would've been about $10 million.

 

[Moggio]

Misquote? Nope, it was a direct quote and I provided a link to the page.
Out of context? Let's me simplify the context for you because you don't seem to understand it. Someone asked "what do you think U2's next TOUR will gross". Another person responded "$600 million". You then replied to the question posed with "definitely not, a 100 date tour would gross CLOSE to $400 million".

Now you were right in that what you posted was "garbage" but that was your description of what you wrote, not mine. It seems every statement you write turns out to be "out of context" when you are proven to be wrong.

Yes, you have severely misquoted me, and have provided OUT OF CONTEXT quotes, spins, lies and manipulations...and PLENTY of 'em. But I'll leave you to figure out which are which and where. Actually, here's an example of another one of your statements that only includes part of the info I was talking about and hence is rendered OUT OF CONTEXT, for more than obvious reasons...

how did that $400 million tour prediction work out for you. But you're an "expert" right.....

You see, NOWHERE do you include the fact that the above figure doesn't include strategic scheduling (since, on a large scale, it wasn't invented yet), nor does it include the fact that I was talking about 100 dates, tops, not 110 dates. That makes a difference, doesn't it?

 

[Moggio]

Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang EUROPE vs. U2 360 EUROPE:

THE ROLLING STONES - A BIGGER BANG TOUR FIRST LEG EUROPE STATS
GROSS: $95,797,952
ATTENDANCE: 909,229
Average Gross: $5,041,998
Average Attendance: 47,854
Average Ticket Price: $105.36
Shows: 19
Sellouts: 1

THE ROLLING STONES - A BIGGER BANG TOUR SECOND LEG EUROPE STATS
GROSS: $120,296,540
ATTENDANCE: 1,074,765
Average Gross: $4,009,885
Average Attendance: 35,826
Average Ticket Price: $111.93
Shows: 30
Sellouts: 2




U2 360 TOUR: 1ST LEG EUROPE STATS
GROSS: $188,344,444
ATTENDANCE: 1,759,222
Average Gross: $7,847,685
Average Attendance: 73,301
Average Ticket Price: $107.06
Shows: 24
Sellouts: 24

U2 360 TOUR: 2ND LEG EUROPE STATS
GROSS: $131,502,367
ATTENDANCE: 1,312,784
Average Gross: $5,977,385
Average Attendance: 59,672
Average Ticket Price: $100.17
Shows: 22
Sellouts: 22




U2 360 TOTAL GROSS AND ATTENDANCE EUROPE:
GROSS: $319,846,811
ATTENDANCE: 3,072,006

THE ROLLING STONES BIGGER BANG TOTAL GROSS AND ATTENDANCE EUROPE:
GROSS: $216,094,492
ATTENDANCE: 1,983,994


DAMN, the Stones really got their butts kicked in Europe by U2. What do you think the Stones will gross on their next tour in Europe MOGGIO?

A VIRTUALLY NON strategically scheduled tour, where the stats are about FIVE YEARS OLD vs. a HEAVILY strategically scheduled tour, where the stats are current!

You're a genius!

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Surely this is the longest argument in Interference history?

 

[cobl04]

And it's in no danger of ending. The endurance of these two combatants is unbelievable.

I think WWII started over a debate on who grossed more between Count Basie and Artie Shaw.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You must be joking?!

There's PLENTY of HEAVY strategic scheduling for the 360 tour dates in Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and South America. And btw, you AGREED with the FACT that U2 are utilizing strategic scheduling.

I never said there wasn't any "strategic scheduling". It has happened in Europe and the United States/Canada by playing two legs of each in seperate years. The Rolling Stones did the same on A Bigger Bang Tour. Some cities that are skipped on the first leg through get played on the second leg through. Thats essentially it in a nutshell, and I will I agree it has an impact, I question the degree of that impact.

Now lets look at the rest of the world outside Europe and United States/Canada to see if there was anything we would call Strategic Scheduling:

AUSTRALIA:
Rolling Stones on A Bigger Bang played two shows.
1 stadium show in Sydney.
1 arena show in Melbourne

U2 on 360 played 8 shows!
2 stadium shows in Sydney
2 stadium shows in Melbourne
2 stadium shows in Brisbane
2 stadium shows in Perth

Where is the strategic scheduling by U2? This is the largest number of stadium shows U2 has EVER played in Australia on a single tour. The only major market not hit by U2 was Adelaide. The Stones failed to completely sellout their one stadium show in Sydney. Even in a 270 configeration, that stadium can hold a lot more than 58,000 people. Then they scale it down to an arena in Melbourne. You can't argue that U2 strategically scheduled anything in Australia, but the Stones sure as hell tried to inflate demand for the single Sydney stadium show by not playing anywhere else in Australia except a single arena in Melbourne. LOL


NEW ZEALAND:
Rolling Stones on a bigger bang played two stadium shows.
1 stadium show in Auckland
1 stadium show in Wellington

U2 on 360 played two stadium shows.
2 stadium shows in Auckland

How does one strategically schedule a tour of New Zealand with just one leg? LOL

MEXICO:
Rolling Stones played two stadium shows on a Bigger Bang.
1 stadium show in Mexico City
1 stadium show in Monterrey

U2 is playing 3 stadium shows on 360
All three shows in Mexico City, in a 360 configeration in the 5th largest stadium on the planet!

SOUTH AMERICA:
The Rolling Stones played 2 stadium shows
2 stadium shows in Argentina
Oh, playing a FREE show on the beach in RIO certainly does not count.

U2 played 7 stadium shows on 360
3 stadiums in Argentina
3 stadiums in Brazil
1 stadium in Chile

This is more than what U2 did on Vertigo and the same number of shows they played on POPMART, their first time to South America.

U2 had ticketed shows in all the major countries. The Stones only had ticketed shows in one country. 7 stadium shows by U2 compared to just two by the Stones. There is certainly no strategic scheduling here by U2.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Wtf are you talking about?!

It's not less than 10% considering U2's NYC/NJ shows in 2009 were strategically scheduled because of no Philadelphia show that year.

Also, the evidence clearly shows Muse's draw basically DOUBLED in the US between 2007 and 2009. This is because because their album sales in the US basically DOUBLED in only those few years. Duh! Not only that but again, Muse did NOT only play ONE ARENA show in Metro NYC in 2010, they played THREE ARENA shows there in 2010 and grossed nearly $2 million.

Who are you trying to fool?

1. The Giants Stadium shows would obviously take into account that both U2 and Muse did not play Philadelphia.

2. Philadelphia has essentially the same impact on the Washington DC market as it does the New York market.

3. In any event, assessing Muse's percentage draw for the 360 show in New York would not be impacted by the fact that both artist did not play Philadelphia.

4. Muse grossed 538,000 in August 2007 in New York, and there is no way they would bring in more than that for the U2 shows where the average ticket price is double theirs, and they are playing a shortened set early in the day.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

A VIRTUALLY NON strategically scheduled tour, where the stats are about FIVE YEARS OLD vs. a HEAVILY strategically scheduled tour, where the stats are current!

You're a genius!

Well, you are wrong on both counts.

1. The Bigger Bang 1st leg in Europe took place in 2006, just three years before the first leg in Europe for 360 took place NOT FIVE YEARS.

2. The Bigger Bang 2nd leg in Europe took place in 2007, just two years before the first leg of 360 and 3 years before the 2nd leg of 360 in Europe.

So at best were talking about 3 years not 5 years between the two tours.

As for strategic scheduling by both tours in Europe, the biggest factor for both tours is that they were broken up into TWO LEGS, one leg in one year, and the next leg in the following year.

1st leg Bigger Bang had 19 shows in Europe
1st leg 360 had 24 shows in Europe

2nd leg Bigger Bang had 30 shows in Europe
2nd leg 360 had 22 shows in Europe.

The Rolling Stones first leg was essentially the same as far as the UK when compared to 360 in terms of number of shows. The Stones played Portugal on their first leg, but did not play Spain. U2 played Spain on the first leg, but did not play Portugal. The Stones had more shows in Germany and shows in Switzerland and Austria, but U2 had more shows in Italy, France, Netherlands, Poland, as well as two shows in Croatia on their first leg.

When looking at the first leg of both tours in Europe, you can't say that one was more strategically scheduled than the other. If anything, U2 played more shows than the Stones on the first leg which should have made it more difficult to achieve a higher gross and attendance. But U2's $188 million gross on the first leg blows away the Stones $95 million gross on the first leg.

Now on the second leg, the Stones had 30 shows and basically every major country got at least one show except Austria. In general, a wider and more balanced tour leg than the first, although the per show gross and per show attendance came down even though the overall gross was higher than the first leg. U2 returned to Spain and France which they had played on the first leg, but skipped Ireland, UK, Netherlands and Sweden which they had played on the first leg.

Still, your looking at 49 shows over two legs by the Stones, and 46 shows over 2 legs by U2. Given those facts, there is very little the Stones could have done to boost their attendance and gross. They could have added more shows to the first leg, but cutting the number of shows on the 2nd leg, but while that would help 2nd leg gross and attendance in some markets, it will likely hurt first leg gross and attendance in some markets.

Live Nation essentially did the same thing for both artist in Europe. They both played about the same number of shows divided over two legs that took place in seperate years. The Stones got to $216 million, while U2 got to $319 million. So you have similar schedules, but the results showing that U2 is now way ahead of the Stones in Europe.

Oh, and you forgot to answer my question. How much do you think the Stones will gross on their next tour for Europe?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

That's definitely not true.

This summer, Madonna just grossed over $116 million USD from only 17 UK/European shows. That works out to be nearly $7 million per show.

And recently, in 2006-2007, Barbra Streisand grossed nearly $95 million USD from only 27 shows worldwide. In North America, from only 18 shows, she grossed over $76 million and averaged over $4.2 million per show.

U2 can't do that.

What?!?!

U2 sure as hell can do that!

Read the following!

Well, I'd like to see Barbara Streisand do the following in North America:

U2 360 TOUR: 2ND LEG NORTH AMERICAN STATS

GROSS: $123,293,286
ATTENDANCE: 1,312,068
Average Gross: $6,164,664
Average Attendance: 65,603
Average Ticket Price: $93.97
Shows: 20
Sellouts: 20



Oh and lets see Madonna do this on one leg:

U2 360 TOUR: 1ST LEG EUROPE STATS

GROSS: $188,344,444
ATTENDANCE: 1,759,222
Average Gross: $7,847,685
Average Attendance: 73,301
Average Ticket Price: $107.06
Shows: 24
Sellouts: 24



Thats an average gross of almost $8 million per show, and thats from 24 shows, not just 17!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

This summer, Madonna just grossed over $116 million from 17 stadium shows in the UK/Europe. Last night, she just started the North American leg, where she'll be grossing roughly $100 million. In December, she'll be playing 10 South American stadium shows, including 4 nights at River Plate Stadium in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Overall, Madonna's Sticky & Sweet world tour will gross well over $250 million, from only 58 shows.

U2 can't do that.

Oh I think they can! Look at what they have done with just 78 shows on this tour:

U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE

GROSS: $519,599,484
ATTENDANCE: 5,051,275
Average Gross: $6,661,532
Average Attendance: 64,760
Average Ticket Price: $102.87
Shows: 78
Sellouts: 78