The Rolling Stones got it right.

[Klink]

Venues:
This is the area where U2 has fallen behind, and it's likely not their fault. McGinness has to get of his ass. To date, the Vertigo tour venues are far too cliche and concentrated. Not only do Boston, New York/New Jersey and Chicago combine for almost 20 shows on this tour, the band isn't visiting any places out of the ordinary...except Ottawa, for which a Montreal show was no doubt sacrificed. In any case, I think it makes a tour special when a band visits more places...places that don't normally get to see the band. It's would be exotic and exciting for fans who don't get to see U2. Same thing for the band, who don't see many smaller cities. For example, look where the Stones are going:

Ottawa, Moncton (for crying out loud...they're going to MONCtON!!), Hershey (PA), Charlottesville, VA. Apparently they'll also be going to the far east, Mexico and South America. Hello? McGinness? Are you there? Your current tour, while a brilliant concept, is far too limited and cliche in terms of venues. Let's see some more interesting, smaller cities. In Canada, i can name a few: Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Halifax, St Johns....heck, even London, Ontario. They'll sell out wherever they go. The megalopolis-only exclusive, corporate attitutude of this management is very bland in my opinion.

Jon

 

[Lancemc]

Yeah well the Stones are probably the worst possible example when it comes to modern touring. I mean, they are the most out-of-the-ordinary band every when it comes to this. Christ, it seems like they have been touring non-stop for like the past 7 years.

 

[Klink]

They also own several of the most successful tours in history.

 

[MTEdge]

They also own several of the most successful tours in history.

It is true that RS tours have been very successful, but have you looked at the prices for their tickets? For this tour, they are charging up to $450 per prime ticket for STADIUM shows. On top of that, they are charging $100 to join their fan club. That, in my book is akin to theft.

U2 has not done a good job of touring far and away places. Fine. But don't use the Stones as your example of how things should be done. Pearl Jam blows everyone away when it comes to fans and touring venues.

 

[BVS]

Yeah but if U2 had a mortgage company sponsor their tour and 90% of their tickets are $100 or more people would have crucified them.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

They`re going to MONCTON?!??

Geez, that`s shocking!

They`re coming to Ottawa for the first time in 40 years - U2 AND The Rolling Stones in Ottawa in one year - I don`t think this city will ever have such a stellar concert line-up again!

 

[MTEdge]

FYI, the average price of a ticket on the current Vertigo Tour is $100.

So the Stones have a mortgage company sponsoring their tour AND they're charging up to $450 per ticket? (I did not know about the sponsorship.) That is pathetic. Assuming they've used sponsors before, it should come as no surprise why they gross so much money on their tours.

 

[BVS]

FYI, the average price of a ticket on the current Vertigo Tour is $100.

There's a huge difference when your average is 100 and 90% is 100 or higher...you do the math.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

sorry and how much are the rolling stones charging again? oh yeah thats it, $60+ for cheapest ticket $400+ dearest tickets

yep they have it right

 

[MTEdge]

There's a huge difference when your average is 100 and 90% is 100 or higher...you do the math.

I'm sorry, not to be dense, but I don't get your point. Whose tickets (U2 or RS) have 90% of their tickets that cost over $100? Actually, I know the answer since it cannot be U2.

For each arena concert, U2 sells at least 2000 GA tix, and at least 3000 upper level tix for $49.50. That's 5000 tickets, some in the prime floor category, that cost just $50 each. The remaining 15,000 or so seats for U2 shows are balanced between $100 and $165 tickets. The $100 average for U2 tickets is a real number. (In fact, I believe the actual number is about $98, as published by those familiar with the industry.)

I will admit though that I do not know the figures for U2's European Stadium shows. However, I am confident that the ticket price average is comparable, i.e., it's probably about 70 Euro per ticket.

Both concert concepts for U2 shows (stadium and arena) are done without sponsorhip.

 

[knox]

I was considering seeing the Stones at Soldier Field, until I found out that to get INTO the stadium I'd have to pay more than I did to be able to read "the GOAL is SOUL" on Bono's guitar during One last night.

So no Stones for me. I really don't want to pay $75 (with TM fees) to see them from 100 yards away.

I might consider trying to grab a ticket for Milwaukee for that much, though, because it will be in the arena downtown...

 

[STING2]

Venues:
This is the area where U2 has fallen behind, and it's likely not their fault. McGinness has to get of his ass. To date, the Vertigo tour venues are far too cliche and concentrated. Not only do Boston, New York/New Jersey and Chicago combine for almost 20 shows on this tour, the band isn't visiting any places out of the ordinary...except Ottawa, for which a Montreal show was no doubt sacrificed. In any case, I think it makes a tour special when a band visits more places...places that don't normally get to see the band. It's would be exotic and exciting for fans who don't get to see U2. Same thing for the band, who don't see many smaller cities. For example, look where the Stones are going:

Ottawa, Moncton (for crying out loud...they're going to MONCtON!!), Hershey (PA), Charlottesville, VA. Apparently they'll also be going to the far east, Mexico and South America. Hello? McGinness? Are you there? Your current tour, while a brilliant concept, is far too limited and cliche in terms of venues. Let's see some more interesting, smaller cities. In Canada, i can name a few: Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Halifax, St Johns....heck, even London, Ontario. They'll sell out wherever they go. The megalopolis-only exclusive, corporate attitutude of this management is very bland in my opinion.

Jon

I'm sure the Stones will sellout in these new smaller cities, but on the last tour, almost half of the 120 shows they played did NOT sellout despite the fact the majority of the tour was in Arena's and Theaters. Michael Cohl(RS tour promoter) saw this happening and did not allow for the weekly boxscore results to be printed until the tour was over.

Sometimes, visiting places where the band has not toured before masked the fact that there is less demand than there was before in the more traditional cities and venues. Specifically, it is surprising that the Stones will be playing no stadium shows in either Philadelphia or Washington DC on this tour and will only have shows in the Arena's for those cities. This makes sellout small stadiums in nearby Hershey PA and Charlottesville, VA much easier.


U2 is playing most of the same cities on this tour as they have in the past, but there are definitely some new venues or venues they have not played in a long time. Omaha Nebraska is a first for U2. U2's two shows at the 80,000 seat San Siro Stadium in Milan is a first. When was the last time the Rolling Stones soldout 3 shows at Croke Park in Dublin? When was the last time U2 played 3 shows in Dublin on the same tour?

 

[Seabird]

McCartney is asking about $200 per ticket. Those old guys aren't touring for their health, if they're going, they want to be paid for it. Being such legends, they must feel they are worth the price.

 

[DanB]

Anyone who pays $400 for a concert ticket is a serious chump.

 

[STING2]

Despite some of the high end prices, the reported average price for the Stadium shows is $100 dollars and the Arena's $110 dollars. This is only about 10% more than U2 and 10% more than they charged on their last tour.

 

[DanB]

Anyone who pays $400 for a concert ticket is a serious chump.

Kudos to Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty who care about their fans. Actually U2 should take a lesson from them.

 

[Hawkfire]

U2 will be charging $200 for the top ticket on their next tour, probably. They are a few years behind the Stones, but they are sadly following every diagram in the Jagger playbook to a 'T'.

"Fan Value" doesn't rate with Bono & Co, sorry.
Bruce and Pearl Jam play 2.5hrs+, 25-30 songs. U2 checks in at 2 hours (and not a minute more, an average of 23 songs per show, at a higher average ticket price). On a per song (or per minute) average, U2 is only a bargain relative to the Stones and McCartney (and again, let's wait a few years because I think even that is temporary).

 

[BVS]

I'm sorry, not to be dense, but I don't get your point. Whose tickets (U2 or RS) have 90% of their tickets that cost over $100? Actually, I know the answer since it cannot be U2.

The point is Rolling Stones have a much, much higher average. I was listening to the press conference and the sponsor said 90% of the tickets will be at the $100 range, only a small % will be the $400, and the really bad seats will be $63.

So when it comes down to it for as many people bitch about U2 prices they're dirt cheap compared to RS.

 

[MTEdge]

Despite some of the high end prices, the reported average price for the Stadium shows is $100 dollars and the Arena's $110 dollars. This is only about 10% more than U2 and 10% more than they charged on their last tour.

For a tour with sponsorship, that is tantamount to price gouging. (Don't forget the $100 fan club membership fee.)

However, if what you say is true (I am not implying that it is not), and that say only 200 prime tickets cost $450, then the $450 ticket cost means that RS is scalping their own tickets.

My point, based on the above assumption, is that RS may be thinking "why should the scalpers benefit from marking up our best tickets? If someone out there is willing to pay $450 for front row tickets, then we (RS) should get the whole $450 for ourselves."

If I am right about what RS is doing, then they have essentially taken the place of the scalpers. In other words, RS is scalping their own tickets.

Contrast the RS situation with what the Boss does for his fans, and what Pearl Jam does for their fans (the best system by far!), and heck even what U2 did for their fans for the Third Leg, the Stone come across as money grubbing has beens.

 

[Seabird]

Forgive me but I don't see that Pearl Jam has the same selling power that McCartney, The Stones, or even U2 have. The more in demand you are, the higher price you can ask. You may say it's because PJ 'care about fans' but I say it's because they simply are not as worthy.

 

[BVS]

They are a few years behind the Stones, but they are sadly following every diagram in the Jagger playbook to a 'T'.

I really think the market has more to do with ticket prices rather than how long you've been around.

 

[MTEdge]

U2 will be charging $200 for the top ticket on their next tour, probably. They are a few years behind the Stones, but they are sadly following every diagram in the Jagger playbook to a 'T'.

"Fan Value" doesn't rate with Bono & Co, sorry.
Bruce and Pearl Jam play 2.5hrs+, 25-30 songs. U2 checks in at 2 hours (and not a minute more, an average of 23 songs per show, at a higher average ticket price). On a per song (or per minute) average, U2 is only a bargain relative to the Stones and McCartney (and again, let's wait a few years because I think even that is temporary).

Do either PJ or the Boss use elaborate stages? I don't know the answer, but I presume not. That, I believe, would justify the cost difference between PJ/the Boss and U2, and the shorter set that U2 plays.

By contrast, I know that RS uses elaborate stages. But to claim that U2 is following the RS pattern and will raise prices to $200 per ticket for the next tour fails to account for inflation.

 

[MTEdge]

The point is Rolling Stones have a much, much higher average. I was listening to the press conference and the sponsor said 90% of the tickets will be at the $100 range, only a small % will be the $400, and the really bad seats will be $63.

So when it comes down to it for as many people bitch about U2 prices they're dirt cheap compared to RS.

Thanks for the clarification. I think that until we know exactly where those $100 seats are, we will not be able to fairly compare prices for U2 shows and RS shows. For example, maybe RS will only charge $50 for each "theater" concert thereby substantially reducing the average. I don't know, and we will not know until we know...

 

[daygloeyes2]

The max price ticket at Fenway($463) is $163 dollars more than I paid for 2 GA tickets.

I'd expect a ticket to be that much from a scalper.

 

[Hawkfire]

In response to the Pearl Jam comment, I agree they are not on the same level as McCartney, Stones, or U2. But, even without a hit album/radio play, they still easily sell out arenas and demand still outstrips supply. While they wouldn't fare nearly as well if they decided to gouge for $100/ticket, given the plethora of sellouts it is safe to say they could still price upwards of their current prices (~$35/ticket) and still sell out and still have tix well under those big name acts above. In other words, they are *definitely* cutting their fans a break.

Re: the comment on staging costs, a good point indeed. The Stones and U2 both use elaborate stages and Bruce and Pearl Jam don't. But the stage costs are generally absorbed by tour sponsors (for the Stones) or by a single promoter, ie ClearChannel/Michael Cohl (for U2). They do impact the ticket prices somewhat, but it still does not account for the fact that Bruce/PJ play longer sets and play more songs.

Re: the $200 price, sure inflation will be part of that...but U2 is slowly - but surely - pricing out the "middle class" fan. U2 concerts are mighty expensive these days....I wish U2 had retired before they became so pandering to commercialism/corporate culture the past 5 years, but now I feel they will rival the Stones for length of time together, and ultimately ticket prices as well.

 

[MTEdge]

Hawkfire, I concede that U2 has become more commercial, and less experimental. (Larry conceded as much in his interview with a Chicago newspaper last week. I believe it's available on U2.com.) However, there is a long way to go before they approach RS/dinosaur territory. U2 is still relevant in the music market today in terms of their recent music. RS is not.

As to staging costs, I would love it if U2 were to play 3 hour shows. Such length, however, may kill Bono's voice. In any event, U2 puts on a more "complete" show, i.e., a U2 concert is an audio/visual delight. I believe that that important factor substantially overcomes the "shortness" of their setlists. Correct if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that ppl do not describe PJ or Boss shows as "religious" experiences. (Please note that I have not gone to either a PJ show or a Bruce show, and so I cannot offer personal opinion on either.)

 

[beli]

I agree the Rolling Stones got it right. They are a holding a World Tour, ie not just North America and Western Europe. They are to be congratulated for that

 

[MTEdge]

delete post... screwed up editing my old one!

 

[sociopathetic]

...Re: the $200 price, sure inflation will be part of that...but U2 is slowly - but surely - pricing out the "middle class" fan. U2 concerts are mighty expensive these days....I wish U2 had retired before they became so pandering to commercialism/corporate culture the past 5 years, but now I feel they will rival the Stones for length of time together, and ultimately ticket prices as well.

It's funny how you fight against the Man in your youth and one day you wake up and you ARE the Man. Just speaking for myself not for U2.

 

[dudeman]

Hawkfire, I concede that U2 has become more commercial, and less experimental. (Larry conceded as much in his interview with a Chicago newspaper last week. I believe it's available on U2.com.) However, there is a long way to go before they approach RS/dinosaur territory. U2 is still relevant in the music market today in terms of their recent music. RS is not.

As to staging costs, I would love it if U2 were to play 3 hour shows. Such length, however, may kill Bono's voice. In any event, U2 puts on a more "complete" show, i.e., a U2 concert is an audio/visual delight. I believe that that important factor substantially overcomes the "shortness" of their setlists. Correct if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that ppl do not describe PJ or Boss shows as "religious" experiences. (Please note that I have not gone to either a PJ show or a Bruce show, and so I cannot offer personal opinion on either.)

i'd actually love to see u2 without all the lights and glitter - just straight up rock music with no distractions, especially if it were a 2.5-3 hour experience (i'm dreaming out loud here). i agree that 3 hours would probably kill bono's voice. bruce fans do describe 'religious' type experiences at his shows, those crazy shows he plays are precisely why he is where he is (that and the gift of songwriting).

basically, if it were as simple as less lighting/spectacle = cheaper tickets and longer shows, i'd be first in line.
i'm certain u2 would kick ass with just amps and house lights.