BBITW: U2 vs. The Rolling Stones - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-08-2002, 11:20 AM   #21
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
hmmmmm not sure what your getting at there MBH.
Take it as a compliment!


BTW: U2's ticket prices ARE TOO EXPENSIVE!!! Period.
__________________

MBH is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 11:40 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Hallelujah Here She Comes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 3,528
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:
Take it as a compliment!


BTW: U2's ticket prices ARE TOO EXPENSIVE!!! Period.
Really? $45 is too expensive for a ticket to see what is arguably the best live show on the planet? I certainly thought it was worth it. The $85 and $130 tickets were a bit pricey, I'll admit. But they didn't seem to have any trouble finding people to buy them. Bottom line: Popular band + Great seats = expensive tickets. Why should U2 charge less than they're worth?

__________________

Hallelujah Here She Comes is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 01:18 PM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: MI
Posts: 166
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hallelujah Here She Comes:
Really? $45 is too expensive for a ticket to see what is arguably the best live show on the planet? I certainly thought it was worth it. The $85 and $130 tickets were a bit pricey, I'll admit. But they didn't seem to have any trouble finding people to buy them. Bottom line: Popular band + Great seats = expensive tickets. Why should U2 charge less than they're worth?

Sorry, this is the ultimate arrogant statement. First off, how quickly did the $45 GA tickets sell out? Pretty quickly. I even had a presale password, and Ticketmaster was slammed so hard that the GA's were gone within a matter of minutes. The remaining $45 tickets were primarily nosebleed seats. So if I want a good seat, I now have to pay between $85 and $130. But I should have no problem with it, because they're "worth it?" I'm sorry, but you're elevating this band to a godlike status. I work hard at my job, too, but I don't demand approximately $65 per hour per person I work for. I know only a percentage of that goes to the band, but it's still ridiculous. The band may live a humble life, but believe me, these guys are rich, and $130 for a concert ticket (even Bono said "we're worth it") is as arrogant as it comes.

Mulholland Drive is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 01:55 PM   #24
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Mulholland Drive:
Sorry, this is the ultimate arrogant statement. First off, how quickly did the $45 GA tickets sell out? Pretty quickly. I even had a presale password, and Ticketmaster was slammed so hard that the GA's were gone within a matter of minutes. The remaining $45 tickets were primarily nosebleed seats. So if I want a good seat, I now have to pay between $85 and $130. But I should have no problem with it, because they're "worth it?" I'm sorry, but you're elevating this band to a godlike status. I work hard at my job, too, but I don't demand approximately $65 per hour per person I work for. I know only a percentage of that goes to the band, but it's still ridiculous. The band may live a humble life, but believe me, these guys are rich, and $130 for a concert ticket (even Bono said "we're worth it") is as arrogant as it comes.

I agree with you. However, I also understand HHSC comments.

Bono went out of his way to tell everyone about the $45 tickets on TRL when announcing the tour, but conveniently failed to mention the majority of the tickets which sold for $85 and $130. When he was asked why the ticket prices were $130 for some seats, he said, "I think we're worth it."

That is very arrogant and a statement like that is exactly why many people may dislike Bono(he comes across as a conceited ass----).

I understand that U2 is hot right now and they can charge high prices for tickets. However, just b/c they can charge a lot of money for ticket prices, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. They CAN charge much less for tickets and choose not too.

U2 are extremely rich; hell, they don't even get taxed in Ireland!!! They won't tour Australia and they charge high prices for most of the tickets to their shows.

And people wonder why U2 is quickly becoming looked upon as a band that is in it for the money more than anything else

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-08-2002).]
MBH is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 03:25 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
U2 did not tour Australia for BOY, OCTOBER, WAR, JOSHUA TREE, ACHTUNG BABY, and yes now ATYCLB. They have only gone there for Unforgettable Fire, Lovetown Tour a year after Rattle and Hum was released, Zoomerang a 4 months after ZOOROPA was released and of course POPMART nearly a year after POP. The band has stated that they are not going to do long tours anymore. The band had been on the road with Elevation for 8 months when it ended.

The band will come back to Australia on the next tour. How come no one hear slags the Rolling Stones off for not going to Australia on the Bridges to Babylon tour. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Stones went there in 1997,1998, or 1999. How many tours did Pink Floyd do in Australia? 1 or 2. When was the last time the Who were there? Give U2 a break. I have met the entire band and they are all very nice people and very down to earth.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 04:06 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Blue Room's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: MICHIGAN, GO BLUE!
Posts: 7,612
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Sting2, I think you kind of misunderstood my prior post. My point was that the Stones could be charging more for most venues and have elected not to. They are also giving their fans the choice as to whether they want to pay less and see them in a stadium if they cannot afford the higher priced arena shows. This is something Paul did NOT do at all. Otherwise I would have gone to see him. He gave his fans no choice but to pay a higher price or not see him. My point about a living legend not selling out an arena is just that. Do you think if Paul had most tickets priced as U2 did for Elevation there would have been a single show that didnt sellout? I certainly dont.

My point about U2 playing stadiums again is that you were comparing the Stones current ticket pricing initially with U2's stadium pricing from 1997. My point was that U2 would be charging more now for a stadium show than they did in 1997. How much? as you said it is impossible to know but I know it would be more than they did in 1997. Thats all I was pointing out.
Blue Room is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 04:07 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Hallelujah Here She Comes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 3,528
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi:
market prices.

end of story.
Thank you.

I didn't mean that U2 is so godlike and amazing that they can charge whatever they want. When I I said "what they're worth", I didn't mean it in some transcendental, "a U2 concert is priceless" kind of way. All I meant was that this is where supply meets demand and that's what a product sells for, like it or not.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, I don't like one bit that tickets to good rock shows now cost almost $100 for you basic, decent seat. So yeah, U2 could sell tickets for a lot less. Maybe they should. I don't know. But I really don't think they're going to.

You have to admit, though. GAs *were* worth $45, if you could get them.

Anyway, this is an old argument and I'm sorry I dredged it up.
Hallelujah Here She Comes is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 04:28 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Blue Room,
I thought you were talking about Paul McGuinness, not Paul McCartney. Sorry about that. What you said makes more sense now. Yep most of Paul McCartney's shows did not sellout and they did have very high ticket prices.

It thought 60 dollars would be the U2 average for a Stadium tour since it is going to be lower than the 80 dollar average which they charged for an Arena tour. The Stones are charging at least 85 dollars on average for the Stadiums. Will have to wait and see what the average will be for the Arena's but I'm sure it will be a lot more than that for the Stadiums. I notice there are several markets where the Stones are not playing a stadium like Miami. I think the Stones are charging the highest price they can and still sellout those stadium shows and they will do it likewise in the Arena. The only gift I see for the fans is the Theater shows but few people will be able to attend those. I'll have to look back at some of the figures for Paul McCartney, but I don't think Paul McCartney is popular enough to do Stadiums anymore. While he should of had a lower price, he'd still be in the Arena's based on current demand.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 04:41 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
While some stadium shows for the Stones are in the 50 to 90 dollar range, several others go from 50 dollars to 350 dollars! Look at tickets for Boston, The Los Angeles Area, Washington DC area and Philadelphia.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 06:45 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Blue Room's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: MICHIGAN, GO BLUE!
Posts: 7,612
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Sting2, LOL, once again I think you missed the gist of what I was trying to say. Yes, some stadium shows are priced up to $350. BUT you can get a ticket to see a Stones show for $50. Paul's cheapest ticket was like $125 to $150, pricing him out of alot of people price range.

Whether he could sellout a stadium? If the pricing was right I think he could or be a near sellout, especially in the big markets. But not with tickets over $150 to $200 for the golden circles. And the cheap seats would need to be $50 to $80 or something like that.
Blue Room is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 07:00 PM   #31
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Uhhh, wasn't this thread supposed to be a discussion of who was the BBITW? I thought the "High Cost of Ticket Prices" thread was dead and gone.

Oh well. It is always nice to see a thread take on a life of their own.

By the way, The Stones certainly have U2 beat in the press conference department. Did anyone see the "Rolling Stone" blimp that they entered Van Cortland Park in?
WOW!!!
MBH is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 08:07 PM   #32
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1:
Who cares. This is the band that made records like Exile on Main Street, Sticky Fingers, and Let it Bleed. U2 may be the best Rock band, but the Stones are one of the best Rock & Roll bands of all time. Moolight Mile may just be the best song ever.




so are you saying that U2 is not one of the best bands of all time?

The Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-08-2002, 11:52 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Ok, back to the original point of the thread here is some statistics for everyone to chew on. This is a comparison of U2 and Rolling Stone studio album sales and tour sales from 1987 to now. I break it up by comparing tours and albums that are close in time periods. All album and tour figures are WORLDWIDE figures. The first is 1987 to 1990.

U2 Albums: JOSHUA TREE over 20 million sold to date. at least 16 million sold from 1987 to 1990. RATTLE AND HUM over 11 million sold to date. At least 9 million sold 1988 to 1990.

Rolling Stone Albums: STEEL WHEELS 4 million sold to date.

U2 Tours: JOSHUA TREE TOUR(inc lovetown) 1987-1989 SHOWS: 157 , 48 stadiums and 109 arena's. GROSS: $72,655,145 ATTENDANCE: 3,985,470

Rolling Stones Tours: STEEL WHEELS 1989-1990 SHOWS: 116 Stadium shows GROSS: $171 million ATTENDANCE: 6 million
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 12:07 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
2nd time period 1991 to 1995

U2 albums: ACHTUNG BABY over 14 million sold to date, at least 12 million sold from 1991 to 1995. ZOOROPA over 7 million sold to date.

Rolling Stones albums: VOODOO LOUNGE over 4 million copies sold to date.

U2 tours: ZOO TV 1992-1993 (incl zooropa and zoomerang) SHOWS: 157 , 95 stadium shows 62 arena shows. GROSS: $158,284,018 ATTENDANCE: 5,360,010

Rolling Stones tours: VOODOO LOUNGE TOUR 1994-1995 SHOWS: 130 , 128 stadium 2 arena. GROSS: $319,499,638 ATTENDANCE: 6,375,892
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 12:24 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
3rd time period 1996 to 1999.

U2 albums: POP 5.5 million sold to date.

Rolling Stones albums: BRIDGES TO BABYLON 3 million sold to date.

U2 tours: POPMART TOUR 1997-1998 SHOWS: 93 Stadium Shows. GROSS: $171,677,024 ATTENDANCE: 3,935,936

Rolling Stones tours: BRIDGES TO BABYLON(incl no security tour 99') 1997-1999. SHOWS: 150 , 100 stadium 50 arena. GROSS: $337.2 million ATTENDANCE: 5.6 million.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 12:47 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
4th time period from 2000 to 2002-2003

U2 albums: ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND 10,850,000 copies sold to date. Unknown if U2 will release a new studio album in 2002-2003.

Rolling Stones albums: no studio album yet. Unknown if new studio album(all new material) will be released in 2002-2003

U2 tours: ELEVATION TOUR March 2001 to December 2001. SHOWS: 113 , 110 arena's 3 stadium. GROSS: $143 million ATTENDANCE: over 2 million. Unknown if U2 will tour in 2002-2003.

Rolling Stones tours: 40th Ann. Sept 2002-2003? SHOWS: still being formed at this time. At least 40 so far with 11 Stadiums and the rest Arena's and Theaters. More shows to come. GROSS: Unknown ATTENDANCE: Unknown
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 01:00 AM   #37
New Yorker
 
shaun vox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: LA.cal ROCKnRoll city!
Posts: 3,192
Local Time: 08:32 AM
DINO RIDERS......

------------------
"BONO'S PRAYER HEAVENS AIR"

ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, ROCK&ROLL HIGH SCHOOL.
THE RAMONES
i dont want to be a pinhead no more.
shaun vox is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 01:01 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Its important to realize that 80 out of the 113 shows of the ELEVATION tour were done in the USA and Canada alone. 33 shows were sprinkled across Europe.

Not knowing what demand would be like for U2 shows 4 years after POP, the band booked an Arena tour that would be easy to sell out anywhere and get good media coverage. The band had recieved a bashing from the media on POPMART in the USA for failing to sell every seat in several stadiums. For some reason, many people in the press deemed selling 40,000 tickets out of 50,000 a failure. But there were definitely a few real low turnout area's like Jacksonville and Tampa. All in all though, the POPMART tour is the Third highest grossing tour in WORLD HISTORY!

Its clear from the sellouts at high prices of every U2 arena show that the band could have done a stadium tour at a stadium price in 2001. U2 underplayed cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Los Angelas, Chicago, and many others. Not to mention the band almost did not even touch Europe where playing stadiums would have been a cake walk. The ELEVATION tour was very successful, but an extended stadium tour would have been needed if U2 wanted to reach its entire concert fan base worldwide and achieve the highest possible Gross in under a year and a half.

So the Elevation tour does not represent U2s maximum GROSS and Ticket sales potential currently.

It remains to be seen if the new Rolling Stones tour will represent their maximum GROSS and Ticket sales potential currently because only 11 stadiums have been booked and most of the shows seem to be in Arena's and Theaters.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:37 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 04:32 AM
market prices.

end of story.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:50 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Blue Room,
Which Arena shows did not sellout on Elevation? Sure there were a few that did not attempt to sell seats behind the stage, but every show, by showtime had sold out all tickets that had been put on sale.

Struggling with 18,000 seats in Lexington is one thing, but how about the Rolling Stones who only sold 27,000 seats in Madison Wisconsin for a 60,000 seat stadium on the Bridges To Babylon tour! Tickest were only 60 dollars and 39 dollars for that Stones show. Not exactly the performance of a living legend!

Also, take the Rolling Stones own turf, the United Kingdom. The Stones failed to sellout Edinburgh, Leeds and just barely sold out the dates in London on the Bridges To Babylon tour! Also U2s POPMART shows in the United Kingdom had higher attendance and higher Grosses.

Although the Stadium prices for the Stones are between 50 dollars and 350 dollars, the average Stones price for the Stadium shows is 85 dollars. The average price for a U2 arena show is 80 dollars. U2 would have to charge a lower average price in the USA if they wanted to sellout most stadium shows. Its anyones guess what the prices would be, but for a U2 Stadium tour, I would guess the average price would be 60 dollars. The STones are charging 85 dollars, but then again, only 10 stadium shows have been listed so far. While the price range is the same for the smaller Arena's, I predict the average price will be higher, with more of the 300 dollar tickets rather than the 50 dollar ones. The only gift to the fans are the theater shows. www.ticketmaster.com has the price ranges for all shows.

So to sum up Paul was right. Not that any of these artist should feel guilty about what they charge. Its economics people. If your not going to make what your worth then someone else is going to. For the past 20 years U2 has charged what their market value is for each tour like every other artist in the industry, and I have yet to see any evidence to prove otherwise.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×