JT vs Zoo TV vs Vertigo: Demand
- Thread starter U2girl
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Rochelle D
War Child
i think it would have been zoo tv
they went every where (almost) and it did go for ages after zooropa came out
they went every where (almost) and it did go for ages after zooropa came out
ChargedVT
Refugee
I believe there was a lot more demand for Vertigo than Zoo TV, and I can at least prove that in Australia...
In 1993 in Sydney two shows (first not sold out) drew total of 93,000.... for this tour its around the 140,000 mark. Melbourne in Zoo TV sold 80,000 tickets, so far this time 110,000. Adelaide has actually doubled the Zoo TV attendance (60,000 for Vertigo! 30,000 Zoo TV)
All Vertigo shows except maybe a couple were instant sell-outs regardless of the venue size.
In 1993 in Sydney two shows (first not sold out) drew total of 93,000.... for this tour its around the 140,000 mark. Melbourne in Zoo TV sold 80,000 tickets, so far this time 110,000. Adelaide has actually doubled the Zoo TV attendance (60,000 for Vertigo! 30,000 Zoo TV)
All Vertigo shows except maybe a couple were instant sell-outs regardless of the venue size.
U2girl said:
Just looking at some of the raw numbers such as average attendance, speed of sellout, etc, it appears that Vertigo is definitely the more in demand tour in just about every place outside of North America with the exception of Japan.
Every show in Vertigo Europe was soldout within hours of going on sale. On the ZOO TV Outside Broadcast portion of the European tour, 20% of the shows failed to completely sellout. Demand in South America, Australia, and Europe is far from being exhausted on the VERTIGO TOUR. The band could sellout many more shows in these area's.
On the Joshua Tree tour in Europe, many of the shows were in Arena's with a number of stadiums as well. The concert in Switzerland on the Joshua Tree did not sellout.
In North America, you would probably still have to see that the Joshua Tree tour and ZOO TV had stronger demand overall than the Vertigo Tour. Both Joshua Tree and ZOO TV had rapid sellouts of stadiums. While there were a few places they did not sellout, most shows did. Its difficult to estimate how a Vertigo Stadium tour would have done in North America, but it best it would only be equal to what happened on ZOO TV and the Joshua Tree.
I'd say demand on Vertigo for North America is 80% to 100% of what demand was for Joshua Tree and ZOO TV. Outside North America, demand for Vertigo is definitely ahead of what it was for the Joshua Tree and ZOO TV. So overall, Vertigo is U2's most in demand tour of all time!
Of course, this is a different market from the late 1980s and early 1990s. The population while it may not be any larger in Europe, certainly has a higher percentage of rock music fans than they did 15 to 20 years ago. The population in North America is significantly larger, and of course there are a higher percentage of popular music fans today than there was back then. Despite this, the cost of going to see the biggest band in the world has gone up dramatically. In nominal terms, fans are paying 5 times as much, adjusted for inflation it is 3 times more expensive to see U2 in concert now than it was back then. So I'd see these factors cancel each other out, and were back to looking at the volume of attendance and the number of sellouts and the speed of sellouts. Here again, Vertigo wins out.
Rochelle D said:
In terms of total attendance, that is true. But the question here is not total attenance which will obviously be higher for a longer tour, but actual demand regardless of the number of shows. On this point, the Vertigo tour is the more in demand tour given the number and speed of the sellouts all over the world.
Rochelle D
War Child
ChargedVT said:
you make a good point i had no clue about the numbers
but i think the reason why the stadiums in Aus were sold out is coz they haven't been here scince popmart (only my idea)
U2girl said:
Brisbane: Same venue (though a different name now).
Sydney: Bigger venue this time.
Melbourne: The MCG (ZooTV) is bigger than the Telstra Dome, but according to the attendance figures ChargedVT gave, they're definitely fitting more people into the Telstra Dome.
Adelaide: Uh, Adelaide folk, it's the same venue with a different name, right?
And in New Zealand, Ericsson Stadium is smaller than ZooTV's Western Springs Stadium, but I believe the attendance for Vertigo will beat ZooTV Auckland+Christchurch. Lovetown is still easily U2's most popular New Zealand tour, though. They played stadiums in both Wellington and Christchurch and STILL managed to stage two stadium shows in Auckland, and this in a country that then had only about 3 million people.
Sken
Refugee
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,042
Same venue, different name, but it has undergone an expansion with an extra stand added to hold more people. Eitherway ZooTV Adelaide wasnt a sellout. Its attendance was around 30,000. Vertigo has smashed that record here.Axver said:
ChargedVT
Refugee
The round numbers that have been used for the upcoming Aus tour are as follows:
Sydney 70,000 x 2
Melbourne 55,000 x 2
Brisbane 50,000
Adelaide 60,000
Now how accurate these are I can't say but I wouldnt doubt it, as looking at the stage set-ups, the stage is right up one end of the stadium, so most of the oval can be used for GA and nearly all of the seats can be used too.
Adelaides AAMI stadium can hold 50,000 for football games... the u2 set-up uses nearly all the seats and the big grand stands (so 40,000 or so) plus they could easy get 20,000 on the oval.
The point of saturation was reached on Zoo TV as both Melb and Syd didnt sell out one of the nights. Melb 1 had about 45,000 and Melb 2 35,000.
Sydney 70,000 x 2
Melbourne 55,000 x 2
Brisbane 50,000
Adelaide 60,000
Now how accurate these are I can't say but I wouldnt doubt it, as looking at the stage set-ups, the stage is right up one end of the stadium, so most of the oval can be used for GA and nearly all of the seats can be used too.
Adelaides AAMI stadium can hold 50,000 for football games... the u2 set-up uses nearly all the seats and the big grand stands (so 40,000 or so) plus they could easy get 20,000 on the oval.
The point of saturation was reached on Zoo TV as both Melb and Syd didnt sell out one of the nights. Melb 1 had about 45,000 and Melb 2 35,000.
I was just reflecting on the New Zealand Lovetown attendance that I brought up in my previous post and a bit of a comparison occurred to me to illustrate just how extraordinarily high the demand to see U2 was in 1989 in NZ.
I believe the population of the greater New York area is a bit over 21 million. And in 1989, the population of NZ was a bit over 3 million. Let's be fair and take out 'a bit over' for each so that we have round figures of 3 million and 21 million (and they're multiples, which makes life easier for me). In 1989, there was sufficient demand for U2 to hold 4 stadium shows for the 3 million Kiwis. If the population were 21 million and the demand equal, U2 could have played 28 concerts. Now, let's be fair. A New York stadium is much bigger than a Kiwi one - let's say 1 New York stadium is the size of 2 Kiwi ones. 28 shows becomes 14.
That's still mindblowing demand. Does anyone seriously think that U2, even at the height of their popularity, could play 14 stadium shows in New York? Or even seven stadium shows?
The "One Tree Hill Effect" was certainly a powerful effect on Kiwis ...!
Last I heard, attendance was initially that poor that the band was thinking about cancelling the ZooTV Adelaide gig until sales picked up in the final couple of weeks leading up to the show. Not sure if that's entirely accurate ...
I believe the population of the greater New York area is a bit over 21 million. And in 1989, the population of NZ was a bit over 3 million. Let's be fair and take out 'a bit over' for each so that we have round figures of 3 million and 21 million (and they're multiples, which makes life easier for me). In 1989, there was sufficient demand for U2 to hold 4 stadium shows for the 3 million Kiwis. If the population were 21 million and the demand equal, U2 could have played 28 concerts. Now, let's be fair. A New York stadium is much bigger than a Kiwi one - let's say 1 New York stadium is the size of 2 Kiwi ones. 28 shows becomes 14.
That's still mindblowing demand. Does anyone seriously think that U2, even at the height of their popularity, could play 14 stadium shows in New York? Or even seven stadium shows?
The "One Tree Hill Effect" was certainly a powerful effect on Kiwis ...!
Sken said:
Last I heard, attendance was initially that poor that the band was thinking about cancelling the ZooTV Adelaide gig until sales picked up in the final couple of weeks leading up to the show. Not sure if that's entirely accurate ...
ChargedVT
Refugee
Axver, in regards to Zoo TV Adelaide, yes it says that it was nearly cancelled in the U2 Live: A concert documentary book.
I have all the newspaper clipping from 1993, and it said that 15,000 tickets were sold on the first day. The day before the concert the promoter said they were "hoping for a crowd of around 30,000".
I have all the newspaper clipping from 1993, and it said that 15,000 tickets were sold on the first day. The day before the concert the promoter said they were "hoping for a crowd of around 30,000".
Similar threads
- Sticky
