u2 360 Boxscore

[superglen]

that was the original 2006 schedule, more or less 15 shows were moved to 2007. some of the shows, IE dublin, never went on sale...

that was the info released at the time:
Amsterdam shows: Sunday 30 July is replaced by Monday 31 July. The original 2nd show on Tuesday August 1 is cancelled.
Paris shows: Saturday June 3 is replaced by Friday July 28. The original 2nd show on Sunday July 2 is cancelled.
Cancelled shows: The shows in Nuremberg and Leipzig are cancelled. Tickets will be refunded. Fans with tickets for these shows who return tickets before June 9th will be eligible for a reduction of 20 euro on any ticket for any other show in Germany. This also applies to ticket holders from Frankfurt who wish to attend one of the current German concert dates.
Postponed shows - now cancelled as well: The following shows are cancelled: Barcelona, Madrid, Brussels, Gothenburg, St Petersburg, Brno, Warsaw, Athens, Zagreb and Frankfurt are CANCELLED. For refund please check with the source of your ticket purchase.

the 2007 dates were announced as late as march 2007 - another factor in leading to very poor ticket sales. a lot of major bands were touring europe in summer 2007: Genesis, the Police...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

h
re: strategic scheduling

probably you don't know that the shows played by the Stones in europe in summer 2007 were mainly re-schedules from 2006. the 2006 european run was scheduled to run from late may to late august and would have had about 35/40 stadium shows.

so much for "strategic scheduling" by the Stones...


the difference between the Stones and U2 (both managed by LN, in fact Michael Cohl was introduced to u2 by Jagger): Stones care more about the gross and milking the markets dry, regardless if the shows are sold out or not. examples: 5 or 6 shows (4 in stadiums) played in the Chicago area in 12 months between 2005 and 2006, the last couple of which were not sell-outs. jagger could not care less, and he's laughing all the way to the bank...;-)

Well this is one of two things, a MOGGIO clone or a Rolling Stones apologist. Either way, there is too much in common here with MOGGIO for a first time post, let alone why would a first time post in a U2 fan forum be largely about the Stones? Chicago only featured two stadium shows and a few arena shows over that period of time. Another thing MOGGIO brings up and gets defensive about. Interesting you mentioned the same city.

Whether the Stones did or did not plan to do a 2007 leg, the IMPACT is the same as strategic scheduling. Only 19 shows in the summer of 2006, followed by 30 shows in the summer of 2007. If the Stones had done more shows in the summer of 2006, that would have had a negative impact on other European shows that summer that did happen, plus it would have made the 2007 leg less likely. Ulimately, the Stones GROSSED more because they reduced number of shows in 2006 and a second leg in 2007. Whether any or none of it was planned is irrelevant.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

that was the original 2006 schedule, more or less 15 shows were moved to 2007. some of the shows, IE dublin, never went on sale...

that was the info released at the time:
Amsterdam shows: Sunday 30 July is replaced by Monday 31 July. The original 2nd show on Tuesday August 1 is cancelled.
Paris shows: Saturday June 3 is replaced by Friday July 28. The original 2nd show on Sunday July 2 is cancelled.
Cancelled shows: The shows in Nuremberg and Leipzig are cancelled. Tickets will be refunded. Fans with tickets for these shows who return tickets before June 9th will be eligible for a reduction of 20 euro on any ticket for any other show in Germany. This also applies to ticket holders from Frankfurt who wish to attend one of the current German concert dates.
Postponed shows - now cancelled as well: The following shows are cancelled: Barcelona, Madrid, Brussels, Gothenburg, St Petersburg, Brno, Warsaw, Athens, Zagreb and Frankfurt are CANCELLED. For refund please check with the source of your ticket purchase.

the 2007 dates were announced as late as march 2007 - another factor in leading to very poor ticket sales. a lot of major bands were touring europe in summer 2007: Genesis, the Police...

WOW, only your second post in a U2 fan forum and more appolgies for the Stones.

The Police tour schedule did not conflict with the Stones. Besides, If the Stones can handle touring in the same year as U2 and Pink Floyd, why should The Police and Genesis make the suffer?

Most ticket sales happen the day of the on sale. Having tickets on sale in March is more than enough time for shows in June.

The Rolling Stones had poor attendance in the summer of 2007 because the demand left was not that strong. In addition, if you just look at the 2006 results, not a single show soldout. This is a big contrast from Stones shows on past tours in Europe.

Oh and every major touring artist wants to sellout and gross a lot of money at the same time. U2 have done that on 360.


Lets take a look at the raw numbers again outside the United States/Canada for both U2 and the Stones recent tours:

U2 360 TOUR: 2009-2011 TOTAL STATS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES/CANADA

GROSS: $480,027,553
ATTENDANCE: 4,541,470
Average Gross: $7,059,229
Average Attendance: 66,786
Average Ticket Price: $105.70
Shows: 68
Sellouts: 68


THE ROLLING STONES - A BIGGER BANG TOUR: 2005-2007 TOTAL STATS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES/CANADA

GROSS: $265,582,081
ATTENDANCE: 2,540,224
Average Gross: $4,215,589
Average Attendance: 40,321
Average Ticket Price: $104.55
Shows: 63
Sellouts: 12



Check out the average gross per show. U2 $7,059,229 , The Rolling Stones $4,215,589

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

May 21 Denver
May 24 SLC
May 29 Winnipeg

LN are on record saying it costs $750k a day. Ticket gross for SLC would have been chewed up in 4 days.

With average ticket price around $63 for SLC it leads me to believe they raised the ratio of cheap seats to fill the place.

There would be no reason for U2 to add these shows if they could not make any money. Its a standard business practice all over the world.

 

[superglen]

well, don't worry, I'm not a clone of Moggio's...
I happen to be a major music fan, used to be a music journalist and happened to help organize a few shows in my city, Turin-Italy...ie the Police in october 2007.

I din't want to defend the Stones at all. I just wanted to point out that the term "strategic scheduling" does not make any sense, in this meaning that every tour by every artist is scheduled, to some extent, in a "strategic" manner.

It's a fact that the Stones drawing power, especially in Europe, dramatically decreased through the years since they went back on the road (1989 onwards). this is surely due to the fact that the Stones did stadium tours in Europe in 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006 and 2007. another key reason is the ticket price wich absolutely went through the roof tour after tour, without much of a "strategic pricing"
Signs were arleady evident in 2003: for a few German shows that were selling poorly they called AC/DC as an opening act!!!
we could take Holland as another example: six stadium/park shows in 1995, 5 Amsterdam Arena shows in 1998, 2 Amsterdam Arena shows in 2003, and in 2006 they were barely able to sell-out a single Amsterdam show, and the second was cancelled.

as I said before, the Stones policy recently has been: "let's milk the market dry, we are aging cash cows, we don't know how long this will last, so...". u2, on the contrary, being a much younger band and apparently far more caring of ethics/social issues, never outplayed themselves, always underplayed almost every market and always tried to mantain reasonable ticket prices.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I have never questioned a U2 attendance or gross figure published by Billboard.

.

LOL What you mean, its your primary reason for being here.

You just asked for soldout shows prior to POPMART that still had empty seats in front. I gave you a whole bunch.

The only BB number I've questioned was how the Phish 12/31/99 number was submitted when they did 18 hours of music in a 52 hour period for a single act event that was only available as a "2 day pass".

Well, thats already been resolved. But you can dance with it so more if you want to. You have hundreds of post questioning all kinds of things about U2, always in some back hand attempt to make the band look less successful, either by what they did, or relative to some other artist. Its essentially what we would call here Moggio light.

You've mentioned minor mistakes in past numbers. This past week had the wrong venue for a Jovi show, plus also said the Waters show with a rumoured Gilmour cameo wasn't a sellout.

Maybe the show was not listed as a sellout because it in fact was not! Of course if you have a hard on for Pink Floyd like Moggio, that might be very upsetting. Not a big deal though since it was just a sudden one off event that occured after tickets had gone on sale.

I read the album sales figures, but ignore the playlist charts because of how they are tabulated.

The airplay list charts are compiled by BROADCAST DATA SYSTEMS. It is in a sense soundscan for airplay, relative to how the charts were compiled prior to 1991.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

well, don't worry, I'm not a clone of Moggio's...
I happen to be a major music fan, used to be a music journalist and happened to help organize a few shows in my city, Turin-Italy...ie the Police in october 2007.

I din't want to defend the Stones at all. I just wanted to point out that the term "strategic scheduling" does not make any sense, in this meaning that every tour by every artist is scheduled, to some extent, in a "strategic" manner.

It's a fact that the Stones drawing power, especially in Europe, dramatically decreased through the years since they went back on the road (1989 onwards). this is surely due to the fact that the Stones did stadium tours in Europe in 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006 and 2007. another key reason is the ticket price wich absolutely went through the roof tour after tour, without much of a "strategic pricing"
Signs were arleady evident in 2003: for a few German shows that were selling poorly they called AC/DC as an opening act!!!
we could take Holland as another example: six stadium/park shows in 1995, 5 Amsterdam Arena shows in 1998, 2 Amsterdam Arena shows in 2003, and in 2006 they were barely able to sell-out a single Amsterdam show, and the second was cancelled.

as I said before, the Stones policy recently has been: "let's milk the market dry, we are aging cash cows, we don't know how long this will last, so...". u2, on the contrary, being a much younger band and apparently far more caring of ethics/social issues, never outplayed themselves, always underplayed almost every market and always tried to mantain reasonable ticket prices.

Well, the jist of what your doing here, your first post in a U2 fan forum, is defending the Stones. As you well know, we can't prove or disprove whether your an alter or not. But typically when there is a brand new person posting, and they jump into a topic in support of or defending another person in the forum, even in a small way, it raises questions.

Both artist have similar tour schedules.

U2 has played Europe in 1987, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2010. Its not really any different from the Stones 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007.

Besides, as long as you wait at least 3 years in between a tour stop, you should do just fine in terms of attracting fans to a show, provided your still an active band and produce new music.

Also, it should be mentioned that the Stones European shows in 1999 only consisted of 10 and nearly half were in the United Kingdom. So the real difference in time away by 2003 was more like 5 years for most European markets. Your definitely not overplaying the market when you wait 5 years.

I'm sure Mick Jagger and the Stones would not mind having more fans at their shows. More fans also increases gross and makes the band more money. Live Nation would not schedule the Stones in such away as to HURT their ability to gross or have large numbers of fans attend. In fact Live Nation does everything they can to insure that a Stones show will be as successful as possible, both in terms of GROSS and ATTENDANCE!

Its laughable to say that the Stones don't care about attendance just because they are getting their ass kicked in that department now by U2.

 

[U2FanPeter]

The Police tour schedule did not conflict with the Stones. Besides, If the Stones can handle touring in the same year as U2 and Pink Floyd, why should The Police and Genesis make the suffer?

So U2's 360 Australian boxscore was not affected by other acts?

In 1997, Stones and U2 were booked for Vancouver about 10 days apart - Stones got thier show bumped 2 months.

 

[U2FanPeter]

There would be no reason for U2 to add these shows if they could not make any money. Its a standard business practice all over the world.

Why is it unthinkable that a 360 show only broke even on ticket sales? U2 have had break even shows since JT was released.

LN may survey the market but don't know what the final tally will be - same with markets where extra shows surprisingly got added.

 

[superglen]

Both artist have similar tour schedules.

U2 has played Europe in 1987, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2010. Its not really any different from the Stones 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007.

once again: I'm not an alter-Moggio. shall I give you my telephone number so you can verify? no problem.
my least interest is to defend the Stones, in fact I'm a much bigger u2 fan than a Stones fan...

anyway, you can't say that the schedules were similar. u2 dramatically underplayed Europe in 1987 (30 shows, half of which in arenas), 1989 (only 14 shows, all in arenas), 1992 (25 shows in arenas) and 2001 (33 shows, of which 30 in arenas). their 1993, 1997, 2005, 2009 and 2010 stadium tours were not criminally underbooked, but still they could have added many more shows, based on demand, and on thoise treks they didn't visit many european contries/cities wich they could have sold out.
the Stones, on the contrary, AND I AM NOT DEFENDING THEM AT ALL, had major stadium tours (always 30-plus shows) in 1990, 1995, 1998 and 2007, smaller STADIUM tours in 1999 and 2006, and a mix of stadiums/arenas/theathres (40plus shows, more than half in stadiums) in 2003. the Stones literally and willingly milked the market dry, and played nearly every european country multiple times.

so, there's no question that today u2 is the number one concert draw in the world, easily outselling everyone else. the Stones could, maybe, try and outsell u2 only if they toured in 2012-2013 celebrating their 50th anniversary, advertising the trek as the "final major tour" and using "strategic ticket price tiering".
in my mind, there are only 2 acts who could try and top u2's numbers: a reformed Led Zep and a reformed Pink Floyd. that's it.

 

[U2FanPeter]

U2 has played Europe in 1987, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2010. Its not really any different from the Stones 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007.

I actually wonder if "stadium fatigue" is a small factor for the Stones in Europe - to their detriment rather than making excuses. Was there more than 2 dozen arenas in all those Stones Euro dates?

Like U2, Springsteen would do arena runs in Europe and come back for Stadium runs.

 

[Diemen]

Well, the jist of what your doing here, your first post in a U2 fan forum, is defending the Stones. As you well know, we can't prove or disprove whether your an alter or not.

You can't, but the mods can. And he's not. So... carry on.

 

[superglen]

I actually wonder if "stadium fatigue" is a small factor for the Stones in Europe - to their detriment rather than making excuses. Was there more than 2 dozen arenas in all those Stones Euro dates?

Like U2, Springsteen would do arena runs in Europe and come back for Stadium runs.

the stones' tour legs in europe in 1990 and 2006 were completely in stadiums.
1999 had a single club show, and the other 10 shows were in stadia.
1995 had 4 club shows and 35 stadium shows; 1998 had, say, 25 stadium shows and less than 10 arena shows; 2007 had like 30 stadiums and 3 arena shows.
only 2003 was a pretty even mix of stadiums, club/theaters and arenas, and still the vast majority of shows were in stadiums. The Rolling Stones LICKS World Tour 2003 by IORR
so yes, you can say that overall the Stones, in europe, mainly played stadiums between 1990 and 2007, over 7 tours: something like 200 stadium shows, or maybe even more, in 17 years! talk about "stadium fatigue"...

 

[CosmoKramer]

in my mind, there are only 2 acts who could try and top u2's numbers: a reformed Led Zep and a reformed Pink Floyd. that's it.

I wish both would tour again. The day will come when, love them or hate them, U2, the Stones, Bruce, AC/DC and the other great bands will be done touring and we will be left with the next cookie cutter "manufactured" artist. It makes me sick to hear people talk about a Britney Spears tour as if she were in the same universe as a Madonna.

 

[superglen]

if I counted right, the Stones did exactly 200 stadium shows in europe over 17 years: 44 in 1990, 39 in 1995, 33 in 1998, 10 in 1999, 28 in 2003, 19 in 2006, 27 in 2007. add to that 50+ show in arenas/club/theaters...

u2 did 18 stadium shows in 1987, 43 in 2003, 33 in 1997, 3 in 2001, 32 in 2005, and 46 in 2009-2010, for a grand total of 175 stadium shows in europe over 23 years. add to that roughly 70 arena shows.

maybe, for a fairer comparison, we should look at a 17-year timespan even for u2, thus counting the shows only from 1993 to 2010: that would make roughly 160 stadium shows and 30 arena shows for the dublin lads.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

So U2's 360 Australian boxscore was not affected by other acts?

In 1997, Stones and U2 were booked for Vancouver about 10 days apart - Stones got thier show bumped 2 months.

Where have I ever stated that another artist touring has impacted the demand for another artist touring at the same time?

Take a look at 1994. You had FIVE stadium tours going across North American during that year. Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Billy Joel/Elton John, Eagles, and the Grateful Dead. Each of those artist set personal North American records that year.

As for 1997, U2 and the Stones were indeed booked about 10 days apart in Seattle and neither show was moved. In fact, U2's Florida shows occured just 3 weeks before the Stones Florida shows occured that year.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Why is it unthinkable that a 360 show only broke even on ticket sales? U2 have had break even shows since JT was released.

LN may survey the market but don't know what the final tally will be - same with markets where extra shows surprisingly got added.

LOL, you said they lost money. I said they were unwilling to go anywhere and lose money.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I actually wonder if "stadium fatigue" is a small factor for the Stones in Europe - to their detriment rather than making excuses. Was there more than 2 dozen arenas in all those Stones Euro dates?

Like U2, Springsteen would do arena runs in Europe and come back for Stadium runs.

There was actually a total of 28 arena's and theaters. U2 has not played ANY arena's in Europe in 10 years now!

U2 had their highest attendance and gross on Vertigo Europe at the time, which was all stadiums back in 2005. But they just topped that by a considerable margin.

The fact is, both artist have been hitting the market in a similar way. The Stones played a lot of arena's and theaters on the Licks tour(which took place 5 years after most of their European dates on Bridges had occured), so if anything that should of helped prime them for the A Bigger Bang Tour.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

once again: I'm not an alter-Moggio. shall I give you my telephone number so you can verify? no problem.
my least interest is to defend the Stones, in fact I'm a much bigger u2 fan than a Stones fan...

It doesn't matter either way. Your first postings are in here to defend the stones and there is no getting around that. Its the one and only thing we can be sure of at this point.

anyway, you can't say that the schedules were similar. u2 dramatically underplayed Europe in 1987 (30 shows, half of which in arenas), 1989 (only 14 shows, all in arenas), 1992 (25 shows in arenas) and 2001 (33 shows, of which 30 in arenas). their 1993, 1997, 2005, 2009 and 2010 stadium tours were not criminally underbooked, but still they could have added many more shows, based on demand, and on thoise treks they didn't visit many european contries/cities wich they could have sold out.
the Stones, on the contrary, AND I AM NOT DEFENDING THEM AT ALL, had major stadium tours (always 30-plus shows) in 1990, 1995, 1998 and 2007, smaller STADIUM tours in 1999 and 2006, and a mix of stadiums/arenas/theathres (40plus shows, more than half in stadiums) in 2003. the Stones literally and willingly milked the market dry, and played nearly every european country multiple times.

U2's tour of Europe in 1987 was their largest ever to that point. Yes, it looks smaller than what you see today, but again it was 1987 and the bands popularity was rising, but it wasn't yet to the level it would be a year later or years later. The tour of Europe started 2 months after the release of the Joshua Tree and ended four and half months after the release of the Joshua Tree. The band were not attempting to underplay anywhere in 1987. Thats just absurd. They did the tour they felt was appropriate given the demand level. You could argue some markets got underplayed, but there was no strategic attempt to underplay any markets that year.

U2 were not even supposed to tour Europe in 1989 but they did. Obviously the tour had to be indoors which of course influenced venue selection in arenas.

In 1992, they were testing the market with the arena run. Where do you think they could have played more shows in 1993? McGuinness specifically said in 1993 that anyone in Europe who wanted to see that band would be able too.

Where else do you think they could have played in Europe in 1997? LOL thats a real funny claim.

In 2001, again after the bruising that they took with POPMART they started in arena's to play it safe. There were plans to continue the tour in 2002 in stadiums, but those plans got shelved because of the bands recording plans.

For 2005, 2009, and 2010, you could certainly argue the band could play some other markets. But the 2005 stadium tour of Europe was constrained by the bands 80 date arena tour of North America.

Again, if you look at the total number of shows that U2 has played in Europe since 1987 VS the Stones, your not going to find much of a difference. In addition, the Stones did not experience anything like what U2 went through with POPMART which caused a significant dip in U2's popularity.

Plus, to be talking about U2 arena tours from 1987 and 1992 as an example of why U2 is beating the Stones in Europe in 2009 and 2010 is beyond absurd. Are you really going to argue that if U2 had done all stadiums in Europe back in 1987 that their gross in Europe in 2010 would have been LESS? LOL

In addition, you don't milk the market dry when you sellout all your stadium shows. The Stones did that in 1990, 1995 and to a lesser degree in 1998 and 1999. We don't have very many individual boxscores from the 2003 Licks tour. Then we have the A Bigger Bang Results.

You know you have milked the market dry when you fail to sellout arena's in a 270 configeration.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

the stones' tour legs in europe in 1990 and 2006 were completely in stadiums.
1999 had a single club show, and the other 10 shows were in stadia.
1995 had 4 club shows and 35 stadium shows; 1998 had, say, 25 stadium shows and less than 10 arena shows; 2007 had like 30 stadiums and 3 arena shows.
only 2003 was a pretty even mix of stadiums, club/theaters and arenas, and still the vast majority of shows were in stadiums. The Rolling Stones LICKS World Tour 2003 by IORR
so yes, you can say that overall the Stones, in europe, mainly played stadiums between 1990 and 2007, over 7 tours: something like 200 stadium shows, or maybe even more, in 17 years! talk about "stadium fatigue"...

The Norway show in 2006 was NOT a stadium. 1998 was only 4 arena shows. 2007 was 27 stadiums and 3 arena shows.

The 2003 Euro tour had 20 shows in Arena's, theaters, clubs etc.

Oh by the way, what would you call the time from 1982 to 1989 with NOT A SINGLE ROLLING STONES SHOW!? Funny how you don't bring this up!

If your not defending the Stones, why are your first post in a U2 fan forum doing just that? As if to say, hey if the Stones had toured like U2, they would being doing better relative to U2 or in fact would be ahead of them?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

if I counted right, the Stones did exactly 200 stadium shows in europe over 17 years: 44 in 1990, 39 in 1995, 33 in 1998, 10 in 1999, 28 in 2003, 19 in 2006, 27 in 2007. add to that 50+ show in arenas/club/theaters...

u2 did 18 stadium shows in 1987, 43 in 2003, 33 in 1997, 3 in 2001, 32 in 2005, and 46 in 2009-2010, for a grand total of 175 stadium shows in europe over 23 years. add to that roughly 70 arena shows.

maybe, for a fairer comparison, we should look at a 17-year timespan even for u2, thus counting the shows only from 1993 to 2010: that would make roughly 160 stadium shows and 30 arena shows for the dublin lads.

Well, I must say you are going to great lengths to defend the Rolling Stones when you start claiming that what shows they did in 1990 or did not do in 1990 are impacting their concert grosses in 2006 and 2007.

Also, did you forget what the Stones did in Europe between September 1982 and April 1990?

If there is stadium or tour exhaustion for the Stones which I find absurd, they have been off of the road now since 2007. If the Stones start in North America next year, they won't be in Europe until 2013. That will be 6 years off, a longer break from Europe than U2 has ever taken in their career.

U2's longest break from touring in Europe has been four years. The Rolling Stones longest break is DOUBLE THAT at EIGHT YEARS! That eight year break was from 1982 through 1990.

Now, they will have had a SIX YEAR break from touring in Europe. Those two breaks are longer than anything U2 has done in their career with regards to touring Europe. More than double in first case, and 50% more in the second case.

So I guess your going to claim that if the Stones had not done one of their tours in the 90s, that they would have soldout all their shows in 2006 and 2007 in Europe? Correct?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Were is Moggio by the way?

 

[prbiker15]

Were is Moggio by the way?

Find out in the Zoo Station section of the forum.

So, another week of boxscores coming up - we'll likely be getting Seattle and Oakland results this week.

Predictions:

Qwest Field - Seattle, WA - 74,000 / 74,000 - $7,500,000
Overstock.com Coliseum - Oakland, CA - 68,000 / 68,000 - $6,500,000

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Find out in the Zoo Station section of the forum.

Wow, Moggio gets suspended and suddenly we get a new poster all in the same day.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

if I counted right, the Stones did exactly 200 stadium shows in europe over 17 years: 44 in 1990, 39 in 1995, 33 in 1998, 10 in 1999, 28 in 2003, 19 in 2006, 27 in 2007. add to that 50+ show in arenas/club/theaters...

u2 did 18 stadium shows in 1987, 43 in 2003, 33 in 1997, 3 in 2001, 32 in 2005, and 46 in 2009-2010, for a grand total of 175 stadium shows in europe over 23 years. add to that roughly 70 arena shows.

maybe, for a fairer comparison, we should look at a 17-year timespan even for u2, thus counting the shows only from 1993 to 2010: that would make roughly 160 stadium shows and 30 arena shows for the dublin lads.

Well, instead setting arbitrary time lines, why don't we just look at their entire careers.

The Rolling Stones global career officially kicked off in 1964 with the release of their first album.

U2's global career officially kicked off in 1980 with the release of their first album.

Now how many stadiums has each artist played in Europe and in what years.

The Rolling Stones - # of Career Stadium Shows In Europe To Date:

1967: 01
1970: 02
1973: 02
1976: 03
1982: 26
1990: 45
1995: 35
1998: 33
1999: 10
2003: 29
2006: 18
2007: 27

TOTAL: 231


U2 - # of Career Stadium Shows In Europe To Date:

1985: 02
1987: 19
1993: 43
1997: 31
2001: 03
2005: 32
2009: 24
2010: 22

TOTAL: 176

These totals exclude arena's and theaters which are NOT insignificant in their impact on concert demand. This has been more of a factor with U2 than the Stones since 1980.

So with a 16 year headstart in the business, the Stones have 54 stadium lead. U2 could make that up in one tour.

In addition, consider the fact that U2 have 46 Stadium shows in 360 in Europe. The Rolling Stones have NONE! If U2 had done stadiums in 270, instead of 360, on this last tour, they could have played 60+ stadium shows in Europe!



If you put the start date in January 2000:

Its the Rolling Stones: 74
U2: 81

If you just measure it by each respective bands last two tours:

The Rolling Stones: 74
U2: 76

Finally, Europe is only part of what makes up the Outside the United States/Canada stats which are the following:

U2 360 TOUR: 2009-2011 TOTAL STATS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES/CANADA

GROSS: $480,027,553
ATTENDANCE: 4,541,470
Average Gross: $7,059,229
Average Attendance: 66,786
Average Ticket Price: $105.70
Shows: 68
Sellouts: 68


THE ROLLING STONES - A BIGGER BANG TOUR: 2005-2007 TOTAL STATS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES/CANADA

GROSS: $265,582,081
ATTENDANCE: 2,540,224
Average Gross: $4,215,589
Average Attendance: 40,321
Average Ticket Price: $104.55
Shows: 63
Sellouts: 12

 

[hedge]

Maoil,

Don't scare him off!

He may, just may have something constructive and objective to offer this forum... there are few enough members as it is taking an active part...




Welcome Superglen!

 

[superglen]

once again, Maoil, I could not care less about defending the Stones. as I said before: I'm a major u2 fan (seen them live 40 times) and only a tepid RS fan (seen them 4 times).
I was just tryin' to bring some new elements to the discussion, and tryin' to figure out why the Stones didn't do that well on their 2006 and 2007 eurotreks.
I will say it again, in capital letters: THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT U2 TODAY ARE A MUCH BIGGER CONCERT DRAW THAT ANY OTHER ACT IN THE WORLD, STONES INCLUDED. OK?

re: overplaying and undeplaying.

a famous quote by McGuinness, summer 1992: "we've underplayed Europe for years. hopefully, the big shows we're doing next year will make up for that".
so, the organization were very well aware that they had been underplaying Europe for years, 1987 included. it's true that the JT EuroSwing started only 3 months after the record had been released and had smashed, but u2, still, could have played more shows in more stadiums in more european contries, if they had wanted/felt like. the JT tour didn't visit norway, denmark, finland, portugal, austria...only played indoors in belgium...and of course, u2 could have easily come back in summers 1988, 1989 or 1990 and would have sold out stadium runs in a blink. instead they waited, for a number of reasons, until 1993 to do a really major stadium euro-tour...and still, that 40show+ run didn't visit austria, finland, barely touched eastern europe (one show in budapest) and didn't visit "exotic" locations like greece or turkey. don't you think that if u2 had played, say, ten more shows in summer 1993 in these "forgotten" countries, they would have sold them out?
that is to say that u2, since they became superstars in 1987, always underplayed europe, save for Popmart which had its well-known problems. that paid off well: u2 smashed box office records in 2005, 2009, 2010!!!!!

the Stones, on the contrary, maybe didn't milk the market dry but surely came very close to satisfying demand, especially in some euro-markets. ie: austria, germany, holland have been played extensively in stadium configurations in 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007. that, to me, lead to some fatigue. example: five sell-outs in amsterdam in 1998, barely one in 2006.
moreover, keep in mind that there was a major uncertainty about the 2007 tour really happening. the lost 2006 shows were not rescheduled, they were cancelled and tickets were refunded. then, as late as march 22 2007, a 30-date euro stadium run was announced, starting as soon as june 5!!!
in the meantime, the Police, Genesis and plenty other major acts had arleady announced and sold out their runs. so, example: it's april 2007; you are, say, a tepid Ducth Stones fan and you've seen them 6 times between 1990 and 2006 in shitty-sounding stadia and they've basically always played the same show/setlist; you've already got in your pocket expensive tix for Police and Genesis (touring respectively after 23 and 15 years: major events!!!) and you probably have arleady planned your holydays, what do you do? "ok, I'll skip Mick and Keith this time", especially if the tix costs 100 euro!!!

once again: don't want to defend the Stones, just tryin' to bring some more common sense to this - very interesting - discussion.

 

[superglen]

tix prices for the stones, rome 2007: ranging from 60 euro to 150 euro, plus booking fees.
60 were the shittiest places; the standing/lawn tix didn't cost less than 100 euro!!!
4 yrs ago, those were really outrageous prices: in fact only about 35.000 punters showed up, while the stadium can hold about 70.000 (don't know how many tix were put on sale, though); this despite the show being their first in Rome in 17 years, and happening in the middle of summer (highest tourist season).
the tickets were put on sale in april. at those prices, it was very difficult to sell out the stadium only 3 months in advance...plus, the Stones didn't have a new record out and had arleady played italy in 2003 and 2006. in fact, I remember a lot of tix given away for free, and major discounts in the days leading up to the show.

on the contrary, one of the major keys of the success of u2360 is the tiered pricing: with ticket prices starting as low as 30 euro, everybody can get a chance to experience u2 live, and see/hear them well, thanks to the stage/seating/PA/video configuration.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

re: overplaying and undeplaying.

a famous quote by McGuinness, summer 1992: "we've underplayed Europe for years. hopefully, the big shows we're doing next year will make up for that".
so, the organization were very well aware that they had been underplaying Europe for years, 1987 included.

Why do you continue to not mention the fact that the Rolling Stones did not play anywhere in Europe from August 1982 through April 1990? Thats 8 years with NO shows at all. In addition, in 1982, they only did 26 stadium shows after having not toured EUROPE since 1976, a big 6 year gap, larger than anything U2 has done. U2's largest gap in hitting Europe is only 4 years.

That fact that you continue to ignore this raises more questions.

On the Unforgettable Fire Tour, U2 were still playing theaters in some countries in Europe because demand was not high enough to play arena's yet. How is that underplaying the market? Before the Unforgettable Fire came out in 1984, U2 was still unknown in much of Europe and at best a theater act in the UK/Ireland

So you could only potentially argue that they underplayed on one tour prior to ZOO TV 1993, and that was their shows for the Joshua Tree tour. But even here, how does one explain the fact that their one show in Switzerland FAILED to sellout? If the band were seriously underplaying the market at the time, how could Switzerland of failed to sellout?

but u2, still, could have played more shows in more stadiums in more european contries, if they had wanted/felt like. the JT tour didn't visit norway, denmark, finland, portugal, austria...only played indoors in belgium...and of course, u2 could have easily come back in summers 1988, 1989 or 1990 and would have sold out stadium runs in a blink.

1. how do you know this?
2. If all these places could sellout, why didn't Switzerland sellout?
3. The band are under time constraints. They can't simply elect to do anything, any time they want too. North America was booked for shows starting in September.
4. In the summer of 1988, the band were working on the Rattle And Hum album and movie and their first priorty when they got to tour again was Australia/New Zealand.

don't you think that if u2 had played, say, ten more shows in summer 1993 in these "forgotten" countries, they would have sold them out?

1. U2 had already played a stadium show in Austria in 1992!
2. The East Bloc had not fully developed yet.
3. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo, were all to some degree involved or very close to being involved in the major Civil war that was raging through the former Yugoslavia at that time.
4. Eastern Europe in 1993 is VERY different from Eastern Europe in 2007!

that is to say that u2, since they became superstars in 1987, always underplayed europe, save for Popmart which had its well-known problems. that paid off well: u2 smashed box office records in 2005, 2009, 2010!!!!!

You can't claim to be underplaying a market when many of your shows don't sellout. Over a dozen ZOO TV shows in 1993 did not sellout. Do you really think the band underplayed London with 30,000 unsold seats for one of the Wembley stadium shows? Do you think they really underplayed Ireland when a 1,000 tickets were not sold for their show in Cork? Several shows in Germany, one in the Netherlands and one in Belgium did not sellout either. Again, McGuinness said that anyone who wanted to see them in Europe in 1993 would be able too, and he was right.

the Stones, on the contrary, maybe didn't milk the market dry but surely came very close to satisfying demand, especially in some euro-markets. ie: austria, germany, holland have been played extensively in stadium configurations in 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007. that, to me, lead to some fatigue. example: five sell-outs in amsterdam in 1998, barely one in 2006.
moreover, keep in mind that there was a major uncertainty about the 2007 tour really happening. the lost 2006 shows were not rescheduled, they were cancelled and tickets were refunded. then, as late as march 22 2007, a 30-date euro stadium run was announced, starting as soon as june 5!!!

Again, why do you not look a the Rolling Stones tour history before 1990 in Europe. You have a stretch of 14 years from 1976 to 1990during which the Stones only played 30 shows in Europe. No shows from August 1982 to April 1990. What ever impact you think the 90s touring add, you must also consider the level of touring in Europe BEFORE 1990. To say that the Stones underplayed Europe in the 14 years prior to the 1990 tour would be a GROSS understatement.

Let take a look at Italy for the Rolling Stones:

1982: 3 stadium shows

8 year gap

1990: 3 stadium shows

13 year gap

2003: 1 stadium show

Now according to you and the claims your making, we should see a huge increase in attendance and gross in Italy with a 13 year gap in shows. After all, its your arguement that the Stones are weak in Europe because they played to many shows. Well, in Italy that was not the case so we should see the reverse right? Lets look at the numbers:

Just one Italian show in 2003:

June 10, 2003
Milan Italy
Stadio San Siro
GROSS: $2,689,029
ATTENDANCE: 54,127
CAPACITY: 67,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $49.68

Just one Italian show in 2006:

July 11, 2006
Milan Italy
Stadio San Siro
GROSS: $3,850,513
ATTENDANCE: 56,175
CAPACITY: 67,509
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $68.55

Just one Italian show in 2007

July 6, 2007
Rome Italy
Stadio Olimpico
GROSS: ?
ATTENDANCE: ?
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0

This Italian show did so badly that Michael Cohl and the Rolling Stones won't let us see the official results. At best, attendance was in the 35,000 range.

So here is a perfect example of the Stones underplaying the market, by NOT touring Italy for 13 years. Did this boost attendance and gross? Apparently not. So its not at all clear that playing less shows or no shows in other countries would of had a different effect on A Bigger Bang tour results.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

tix prices for the stones, rome 2007: ranging from 60 euro to 150 euro, plus booking fees.
60 were the shittiest places; the standing/lawn tix didn't cost less than 100 euro!!!
4 yrs ago, those were really outrageous prices: in fact only about 35.000 punters showed up, while the stadium can hold about 70.000 (don't know how many tix were put on sale, though); this despite the show being their first in Rome in 17 years, and happening in the middle of summer (highest tourist season).
the tickets were put on sale in april. at those prices, it was very difficult to sell out the stadium only 3 months in advance...plus, the Stones didn't have a new record out and had arleady played italy in 2003 and 2006. in fact, I remember a lot of tix given away for free, and major discounts in the days leading up to the show.

on the contrary, one of the major keys of the success of u2360 is the tiered pricing: with ticket prices starting as low as 30 euro, everybody can get a chance to experience u2 live, and see/hear them well, thanks to the stage/seating/PA/video configuration.

The Rolling Stones played NO shows in Italy from the fall of 1990 until the summer of 2003. We should have seen a huge increase in attendance and gross according to you given that level of underplaying in Italy. But they only did one show in Italy in 2003 that didn't even sellout out with tickets averaging at only $50 dollars.

Average ticket price for the one Italian show in 2006 was only $68.55. Again, the show failed to sellout despite being the only show in Italy that year and only the second show in Italy in 16 years.

Then in 2007, another show is played in Rome, again, an area of the country they have not played in 17 years. The results are so bad that they are not reported to billboard boxscore.

Ironically, what happens in Italy alone contradicts your claim that led you to register in the forum and and has been the subject of all eight of your post.

By the way, U2 360 Stadium shows have one of the highest average ticket prices ever for a global stadium tour. The average ticket price on U2 360 is higher than the average ticket price the Stones have charged for ANY of their stadium shows.