How are The Rolling Stones doing compared to U2?

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

U2Man

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
11,603
Location
at pavel's
Since I just saw that our national football stadium (with a capacity of 45.000-50.000 people) here in Denmark wasn't big enough for the Stones (although it was for U2. The Stones will instead play at an open venue with a capacity of 75.000, quite impressive in such a small country), I was wondering, is it likely that Stones will top U2 once again?
 
:scratch:

BTW, interesting question. I read the story about Stones and Horsens. Too bad they are going there instead of CPH.
 
yimou said:
:scratch:

BTW, interesting question. I read the story about Stones and Horsens. Too bad they are going there instead of CPH.

Yeah, I bet Don Ø is furious right now :giggle:

Do you believe the story about the organizers not making any profit at all?
 
Nope, because i went and checked the ticket prices at www.billetlugen.dk If i remember correctly then the prices are between 595-695 DKK.

So if The Stones played in Parken, then everybody would STILL be making a good profit since the prices are so close to the price of a U2 ticket. I think the word is greed/profit. If they can play for 75.000 and demand those prices when Horsens are still relatively close to CPH. Then it´s a very good business decision.

Oh, and i am sure Horsens music director must have promised them some sort of bonus. It seems that he is getting all the big names over there. Paul, Duran Duran, The Stones.




Sorry, buddy.. Reading that confuses even me :huh: Try and make some sense out of that nonsense :laugh:
 
Last edited:
U2 is the biggest band in the world nowadays. Period.


U2Man said:
Since I just saw that our national football stadium (with a capacity of 45.000-50.000 people) here in Denmark wasn't big enough for the Stones (although it was for U2. The Stones will instead play at an open venue with a capacity of 75.000, quite impressive in such a small country), I was wondering, is it likely that Stones will top U2 once again?
 
Well, the Stones will surely make a profit.

The word was that Rolling Stones would get ALL income from the sales of tickets (around 50.000.000 DKK), which the organizers had already paid them, apparently. - Which would mean that the organizers would make no profit at all from ticket sales.

But of course, there is still money to be made on bear, sandwiches, burgers, hot dogs, parking fees etc....
 
Re: Re: How are The Rolling Stones doing compared to U2?

fedeu2 said:
U2 is the biggest band in the world nowadays. Period.



That wasn't my question.
 
U2Man said:
Since I just saw that our national football stadium (with a capacity of 45.000-50.000 people) here in Denmark wasn't big enough for the Stones (although it was for U2. The Stones will instead play at an open venue with a capacity of 75.000, quite impressive in such a small country), I was wondering, is it likely that Stones will top U2 once again?

Until 2001, Rolling Stones (and, since 70's) were the #1 live act with U2 at #2 or #3, below Pink Floyd (with huge huge demand in Northamerica and Europe during their Momentary Tour '87-89 and Division Bell '94).

Since 2001 til now, U2 and Stones are the #1 bands in terms of demand, but in some countries U2 top Stones:

Italy
Spain
England
Scotland
Wales
Portugal
France
Argentina?
Brasil
Chile?
Mexico
Australia?

Vox
 
U2Man said:
Since I just saw that our national football stadium (with a capacity of 45.000-50.000 people) here in Denmark wasn't big enough for the Stones (although it was for U2. The Stones will instead play at an open venue with a capacity of 75.000, quite impressive in such a small country), I was wondering, is it likely that Stones will top U2 once again?

Its difficult to know precisely since the Rolling Stones won't release their concert statistics until their tour is finished. A rather strange thing to do if your the #1 or #2 touring artist in the world. The Stones always released their concert statistics information as soon as it became available until the 2002-2003 Licks World tour where nearly half of the concerts did not sellout.

The Stones have never had to top U2 before in terms of Worldwide Concert Grosses. The Rolling Stones have been the #1 touring Artist worldwide since 1975, but the Vertigo Tour is the first tour that will achieve a GROSS higher than any tour in the history of the planet, including any Stones tour.

The current Stones tour from a commercial standpoint is designed to do one thing, and that is top the Vertigo Tour and regain or keep the position as the Top Grossing touring artist in the world. U2 are going to end the Vertigo tour in mid April, but the band had the option to play stadiums all across Europe and North America in the summer of 2006.

When the Vertigo Tour finishes in April 2004, the GROSS will be around $400 million dollars making it the highest Grossing tour in History. U2 could add another $200 to $300 million tour if they continued and played stadiums in Europe and North America. But the band has decided they want to take a break and then get back in the Studio and begin recording the next album. All of U2's 32 stadium shows in Europe soldout on the day of release in 2005.

By contrast, there are several Rolling Stone shows that have not soldout in their home country, the United Kingdom, a week after tickets went on sale. In Denmark I would presume the Rolling Stones would be the bigger concert draw since the Danes tend to be more like the Germans when it comes to the Stones. Germany in fact may be the strongest market for the Stones on a per capita basis in terms of selling concert tickets.

The Rolling Stones will likely GROSS $500 million to $600 million by the time their tour finishes towards the end of 2006. Its debatable though about which tour will have the higher attendance.


When it comes to album sales, there is simply no contest. HTDAAB has sold almost 10 million copies worldwide while A Bigger Bang has only sold about 2 million copies worldwide.

Going back to the two tours, the number of people played to for both tours will be very similar. The Stones will get the higher GROSS figure because of their higher ticket prices.

Its difficult to say who is the stronger concert selling act as U2's Vertigo tour is stopping early from a comercial standpoint without fully satisfying demand in both Europe and North America. One thing is for sure, this is the closest and most competitive the two artist have ever been in terms of GROSS figures.
 
Re: Re: How are The Rolling Stones doing compared to U2?

Vox02 said:


Until 2001, Rolling Stones (and, since 70's) were the #1 live act with U2 at #2 or #3, below Pink Floyd (with huge huge demand in Northamerica and Europe during their Momentary Tour '87-89 and Division Bell '94).

Since 2001 til now, U2 and Stones are the #1 bands in terms of demand, but in some countries U2 top Stones:

Italy
Spain
England
Scotland
Wales
Portugal
France
Argentina?
Brasil
Chile?
Mexico
Australia?

Vox

I'd say U2 has been the #2 touring act since 1987. Pink Floyd's Momentary Tour may have achieved a higher attendance because the played more shows, but looking at demand in each major city, it appears that U2 had the upperhand, at least in North America. In Europe, U2 cut their European tour short despite the what some considered the most massive demand anyone had scene for a concert tour with riots occuring in many countries when tickets soldout in record time.

For the 1994 Division Bell Tour, Pink Floyd had a tier pricing system for tickets and many tickets in stadiums in North America were only around $20 dollars giving them an ability to fill the Upper Level seats that U2 did not have on ZOO TV with their standard single price ticket for all seats.

Unfortunately, Amusement Business was not tracking the concert scene outside of North America prior to 1995 and so precise figures are not available to compare international shows.
 
Re: Re: How are The Rolling Stones doing compared to U2?

STING2 said:
Its difficult to say who is the stronger concert selling act as U2's Vertigo tour is stopping early from a comercial standpoint without fully satisfying demand in both Europe and North America. One thing is for sure, this is the closest and most competitive the two artist have ever been in terms of GROSS figures.

I think (in attendance) U2 is the stronger concert selling act in worldwide basis.

Stones are stronger in Germany, perhaps Scandinavia, perhaps Holland (I remember 5 shows in Amsterdam Arena in 1998) and Belgium. Maybe Japan?

Tie in US? Canada? East Europe? Switzerland? Austria?

But U2 are stronger in UK (they coul easily played 2 o 3 more shows in London, and second dates in Glasgow and Cardiff), Ireland (of course), Spain (in my country, Stones sold only half of the entire Olympic Stadium, with tickets go on sale yesterday, but their tickets prices are €30 to €50 more expensive than U2), Portugal, Italy, France and the entire Southamerican market.

And, probably the entire Aussie/NZ market.

The problem are the ticket prices. But, years ago (Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge :)huh: ) and Bridges, Stones not only were the biggest grossing tour act, but the biggest attendance act. Now, U2 top Stones in attendance. In the years to come U2 will become the biggest live band in all terms!

Vox
 
On a side note, the rerelease of the "Jump Back '71-'93" compilation actually outsold "A Bigger Bang" on Billboard's comprehensive album's chart............they landed at 194 and 195.......seems to fit in with the fact that nobody is really interested in their new stuff.............
 
On a side note, the rerelease of the "Jump Back '71-'93" compilation actually outsold "A Bigger Bang" on Billboard's comprehensive album's chart............they landed at 194 and 195.......seems to fit in with the fact that nobody is really interested in their new stuff.............

You're missing that Billboard counted 52 weeks of sales from Jump Back and only 9 weeks from A Bigger Bang.
 
Soldatti said:


You're missing that Billboard counted 52 weeks of sales from Jump Back and only 9 weeks from A Bigger Bang.

Do you have current soundscan totals for both albums?
 
the stones have only sold out 1 UK show you can still get tickets for all there UK shows apart from wembley night 1. the tickets have been on sale for 2 weeks now!
 
Soldatti can correct me if I´m wrong but I believe that it took two weeks for the Stones to sold out the first night in Buenos Aires.
I think we can reasonably gauge the popularity of both bands after we know how long it takes for U2 to sold out the first show in the very same city.
My guess is U2 will do it faster but I maybe be wrong.


andyuk said:
the stones have only sold out 1 UK show you can still get tickets for all there UK shows apart from wembley night 1. the tickets have been on sale for 2 weeks now!
 
They sold out the two shows in two weeks, but the tickets were the most expensive ever here. The top price (250 pesos - 83 USD) is inaccessible for the 50% of the country.
Here in Argentina, the Stones are way more popular than U2, especially on the young poor crowd, its something very strange actually. There are hundred of "stone" bands, some very popular, with the Stones image and lifestyle. U2 is more a "high class act".

The other point is that this country is very far from the sell outs of 2 hours or a day, it could play Pink Floyd here and it will take a week, at least, to fill the stadium. In 1998, I bought the ticket for the last show of U2 three days before on ticketmaster.
All the shows for U2 (3), Stones (12), Macca (2) and almost every artist were sold out, but the tickets were on sale for weeks and even months.
 
If the top price was U$S 83, they´re not the most expensive ever whatsoever. I remember, back in 1998, that ticket prices to see U2 were in the range 50-170 US dollars, or something like that.
And Rolling Stones´prices were even higher.
As for the Stones being way more popular than U2 nowadays, I´m not so sure. That was clearly the case back in 1994 and 1998 but now, I´m sure U2 have dramatically narrowed the popularity gap. The Stones may be still more popular overall, but not to the same extent as in the past.

I don´t expect a sell out in just a couple of hours either. As you put it, things does not work that way in South America. Still, I tend to think that there will be an unprecedented demand for the upcoming U2 shows in Argentina.


Soldatti said:
They sold out the two shows in two weeks, but the tickets were the most expensive ever here. The top price (250 pesos - 83 USD) is inaccessible for the 50% of the country.
Here in Argentina, the Stones are way more popular than U2, especially on the young poor crowd, its something very strange actually. There are hundred of "stone" bands, some very popular, with the Stones image and lifestyle. U2 is more a "high class act".

The other point is that this country is very far from the sell outs of 2 hours or a day, it could play Pink Floyd here and it will take a week, at least, to fill the stadium. In 1998, I bought the ticket for the last show of U2 three days before on ticketmaster.
All the shows for U2 (3), Stones (12), Macca (2) and almost every artist were sold out, but the tickets were on sale for weeks and even months.
 
If the top price was U$S 83, they´re not the most expensive ever whatsoever. I remember, back in 1998, that ticket prices to see U2 were in the range 50-170 US dollars, or something like that.

U$$ 83 back then were 83 pesos, U$$ 170 back then were 170 pesos. Now the peso is 1-3 with the dollar and a 275 pesos ticket (including the ticketbastard service) is out of this world for many Argentinean people.

Still, I tend to think that there will be an unprecedented demand for the upcoming U2 shows in Argentina.

Agreed, but I don't think that demand will be very different. It will take the same time to sell both shows and maybe more time if the tickets go on sale during this/next week due the holiday season. The prices for gifts are up 20% over the last year and the inflation was terrible this year, almost 17% over the last year and 2005 isn't over yet. I used to pay $1.8 for a cold beer in January, now it cost $2.8 in the same shop. :huh:

An example: the tickets for Santana are wide open in all the levels after 6 days of sale.
 
Soldatti said:


U$$ 83 back then were 83 pesos, U$$ 170 back then were 170 pesos. Now the peso is 1-3 with the dollar and a 275 pesos ticket (including the ticketbastard service) is out of this world for many Argentinean people.


Oh, I understand what you mean now. I thought you were talking in absolute terms, i.e., regardless of the dollar/peso ratio. You're right, during the days of the infamous dollar/peso parity, dollars were very cheap in Argentina.

Soldatti said:


Agreed, but I don't think that demand will be very different. It will take the same time to sell both shows and maybe more time if the tickets go on sale during this/next week due the holiday season. The prices for gifts are up 20% over the last year and the inflation was terrible this year, almost 17% over the last year and 2005 isn't over yet. I used to pay $1.8 for a cold beer in January, now it cost $2.8 in the same shop. :huh:


I guess we can only wait and see what happens.

Soldatti said:


An example: the tickets for Santana are wide open in all the levels after 6 days of sale.


Yes, but U2 is a way more popular act than Santana anywhere in the world.

:wink:
 
Soldatti said:
They sold out the two shows in two weeks, but the tickets were the most expensive ever here. The top price (250 pesos - 83 USD) is inaccessible for the 50% of the country.
Here in Argentina, the Stones are way more popular than U2, especially on the young poor crowd, its something very strange actually. There are hundred of "stone" bands, some very popular, with the Stones image and lifestyle. U2 is more a "high class act".

The other point is that this country is very far from the sell outs of 2 hours or a day, it could play Pink Floyd here and it will take a week, at least, to fill the stadium. In 1998, I bought the ticket for the last show of U2 three days before on ticketmaster.
All the shows for U2 (3), Stones (12), Macca (2) and almost every artist were sold out, but the tickets were on sale for weeks and even months.

How many copies has "A Bigger Bang" sold in Argentina?

How many copies has "HTDAAB" sold in Argentina?
 
HTDAAB is certified Gold, it means 20,000 copies sold.
http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?AnoFiltro=2004&CO=5&CODOP=ESOP&ACCION=+Buscar+

ABB is Platinum with 40,000 copies sold.
http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?CodOp=ESOP&CO=5

The illegal copies for both albums are astronomical too, more of the Stones' album if we see the crowd target.
The price for both albums is U$S 10 (30 pesos) on stores but you can buy copies by 5 pesos (1.7 dollars) on almost every street and market.
The black market represents the 59% of the music in Argentina, only the 41% are legal CD's.
 
It's tough to compare the Stones' and U2's respective tours because not only is there vastly different pricing (meaning, the Stones would gross a lot more even if they sold less tickets), but also because the Stones are hitting more stadiums around the world. U2 did arenas and smaller stadiums because they like that more intimate setting. There were exceptions (like the 80,000 seat Croke Park), but overall, this is true. Stones are doing stadiums, so there's more tickets to be sold at a higher ticket price.

Now, if U2 and the Stones were on equal footing in terms of price and venues, it might very well be a draw.
 
Back
Top Bottom