should u2 increase their ticket prices on the next tour?

[Lancemc]

What hurts fans is when scalpers buy out the majority of the tickets to begin with. If the ticket prices were raised by say 50%, less "casual" fans would be inclined to buy tickets, scalpers would make less profite due to both the increased prices and less public demand, AND the fans who stick it out still end up paying much less than they would on ebay or from a scalper.

Sounds fan-fucking-tastic to me.

 

[U2Man]

but why is it screwing their fans to charge what the fans are willing to pay?

 

[God Part III]

but why is it screwing their fans to charge what the fans are willing to pay?

They don't exactly need the extra cash, do they?

 

[corianderstem]

Because I'm saying not all fans would be able, much less willing, to pay $200.

If U2 does that and basically says "too bad for all your starving artists and college kids," I think that would be awfully damn sad.

But whatever. It's inevitable that they'll go up.

 

[Lancemc]

No, they don't NEED the cash. In fact they have so much money they could easily put on a free tour if they wanted. But that's not how the business works. The fact remains it still might be a good idea to raise prices.

 

[U2Man]

They don't exactly need the extra cash, do they?

no but u2 is not a charity thing. its a business.

 

[corianderstem]

You're all just a damned bunch of capitalists!

 

[God Part III]

I just don't agree. I don't have that much money, I spent about 1500 dollars to travel Europe and see 4 U2 shows back in the day. I will spend more to see more shows on next tour. But don't make it more expensive than it already is.

Screw the scalpers, what's the percentage of tickets being re-sold anyway? 2% or something?

 

[God Part III]

You're all just a damned bunch of capitalists!

Agreed!

;D

 

[Axver]

If they're going to charge $200, the show needs to be worth $200.

That would only apply to Lovetown.

 

[toscano]

I just don't agree. I don't have that much money, I spent about 1500 dollars to travel Europe and see 4 U2 shows back in the day. I will spend more to see more shows on next tour. But don't make it more expensive than it already is.

Screw the scalpers, what's the percentage of tickets being re-sold anyway? 2% or something?

Prices should be lowered.

Oh wait, that's right, the ideals have left the building

 

[corianderstem]

All right, all right, fine. You all win.

But they may only increase prices for purely business reasons (i.e., "The only way we can afford to keep touring is to raise prices, because we only made 24 cents profit on the last tour.").

If I read some bullshit Bono interview where he starts going on about how he wants to topple the Stones from their highest grossing tour status, Bono and I are going to have WORDS.

And they won't be pretty ones.

 

[corianderstem]

Oh wait, that's right, the ideals have left the building

Makes you kind of feel like an aging hippie, yeah?

And I wasn't even born until the hippies started thinking about becoming yuppies!

 

[BVS]

easy:

1) higher ticket prices -> less people would be interested in buying a ticket -> less competition for tickets -> smaller market for scalpers.

2) higher ticket prices -> the profits a scalper could make would be less.

This is assuming we live in a world of elementary school economics.

 

[Axver]

This is assuming we live in a world of elementary school economics.

It also assumes that the fans U2 want are willing to pay that much. They've repeatedly expressed that they don't want a bunch of suits who can afford $300 in the front rows because the energy and vibe isn't as good.

I don't see why U2 need to up their prices at all. They're already making a substantial profit and easily covering costs. If they want to beat the touts, they just need a better method of selling tickets.

What they - and other big bands - need to do is lower prices for concerts back to a reasonable level. I shouldn't have to dip into my savings just to see a band. I don't have to dip into my savings to go to the movies or buy a book or have dinner at a restaurant or go to a theme park or see a really good local band. Why should I to see a famous band?

 

[Lancemc]

What they need more than anything is a pre-sale that doesn't send a 320 pound black man to your house to butt-rape you.

 

[God Part III]

Makes you kind of feel like an aging hippie, yeah?

And I wasn't even born until the hippies started thinking about becoming yuppies!

lol!

 

[corianderstem]

What they need more than anything is a pre-sale that doesn't send a 320 pound black man to your house to butt-rape you.

Wow, now I'm REALLY glad I didn't join U2.com for the pre-sale.

 

[Lancemc]

What they need more than anything is a pre-sale that doesn't send a 320 pound black man to your house to butt-rape you.

....figuritively,


of course.

 

[toscano]

Makes you kind of feel like an aging hippie, yeah?

And I wasn't even born until the hippies started thinking about becoming yuppies!

Nah, I'm an aging baby boomer who paid around $5 first time I saw them.

It doesn't matter whether the tickets are $100 or $200, scalpers will still make a bundle off of them, and in the meantime the majority of fans who DON'T buy from scalpers will be getting screwed. Still, it appears to be important to some people that U2 be the biggest grossing band out there.

When you're on an outrageous guarantee does it really matter?

According to my son's bass teacher who is reasonably well connected with the LA music world, the bass tech (stuart something) who filled in for Adam was paid Adam's salary for the night. $25,000. So yes, Zoo TV broke even as a business venture, but the band were making out ok. Who knows what that number is up to now.

 

[corianderstem]

I honestly don't remember how much I paid for my first U2 show, the ZOOTV tour.

I did buy a scalped ticket for Popmart, but only after being convinced by a friend who had an extra ticket and swayed me with his talk of "15th row". It was $150. I was a poor piano teacher at the time and had to sell a crate of CDs to a resale shop to finance the ticket. And that only got me $75.

But you know what? It was worth it. (Although I wish I still had those CDs.)

 

[coolian2]

According to my son's bass teacher who is reasonably well connected with the LA music world, the bass tech (stuart something) who filled in for Adam was paid Adam's salary for the night. $25,000. So yes, Zoo TV broke even as a business venture, but the band were making out ok. Who knows what that number is up to now.

Nice work, if you can get it.

 

[STING2]

u2 didnt charge half of what the rolling stones charged for an average ticket at their last tour. every single vertigo show was sold out. it would make sense to raise the ticket prices next time, to show the world that u2 is indeed as big or maybe even bigger than the stones.

anyone can make thousands of people come to a show if its free or if the ticket prices are really low. the really big bands can make people come to their shows, even though the ticket prices are very high.

should u2 show who is the biggest and most popular band in the world on their next tour?

Outside of the United States/Canada, U2 is bigger than the Stones! Consider the following statistics:


Rolling Stones: A Bigger Bang Tour(outside USA/Canada)

GROSS: $148,407,984
ATTENDANCE: 1,480,547
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,364,940
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 43,545
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $100.24
SHOWS: 34
SELLOUTS: 11

U2: VERTIGO TOUR(outside USA/Canada)to date:

GROSS: $245,697,711
ATTENDANCE: 3,137,122
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,724,956
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 60,329
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $78.32
SHOWS: 52
SELLOUTS: 52

The average ticket price WORLDWIDE including the United States/Canada for the Vertigo tour regardless of venue(Stadium or Arena) was $84.22, The Rolling Stones charged an average price of $121.70. So, U2's prices were actually 70% of what the Stones were, despite the fact they did not charge massive rates for floor seats. The Stones had $500 tickets for thousands of their floor seats which raised their average much higher than it would have been normally. Outside of the United States/Canada, U2's ticket prices were 78% of the Stones and they attained a higher gross, higher attendance, higher average gross per show, higher average attendance per show

Because of U2's commitment to keeping floor tickets the cheapest, your not going to see U2 charge as much as the Stones per show for tickets. Plus, given the results of the tour, they don't need to charge more than the Stones to beat them. In the United States/Canada, all they really need to do is play stadiums, although the Stones may still win out in this area. Overall though, U2 despite a slightly lower overall gross $389 million dollars, to the Stones $440 million dollars, are now probably the bigger touring artist, especially when you consider that U2 underplayed everywhere worldwide, while the Stones exausted demand in most markets.


U2's ticket prices will now doubt be higher on the next tour, but there is no reason to raise them substantially in order to beat the Stones, because the Vertigo tour proves that a equal or higher ticket price is not needed to do so.

 

[BWU2Buffs]

In response to the original question, at the very least they should reverse the location / pricing equation -- the high demand floor seats should sell for more than the nosebleeds. To me it's a U2 PR gimmick that has run its course.

I'm surprised at one of Axver's comments regarding not understanding why concerts cost so much -- dragging 20 or 30 semi-loads of gear and who knows how many people all over the world is not cheap.

Plus if there was so much profit margin in the concert business wouldn't there be more concert promoters chasing the profits? My guess is that it's a high financial risk business model serving finicky and unpredictable consumers with logistical nightmares that add complexity -- in short, we are probably lucky some companies are willing to take on this risk so we can even see concerts at these prices. We see a lot of the gross revenues, even in this thread, we don't see the net profit or loss figures.

 

[Bono's Betty]

Wow, now I'm REALLY glad I didn't join U2.com for the pre-sale.

They may have grossed more but only because they charged 1/3 more than u2 have.

 

[STING2]

In response to the original question, at the very least they should reverse the location / pricing equation -- the high demand floor seats should sell for more than the nosebleeds. To me it's a U2 PR gimmick that has run its course.

I'm surprised at one of Axver's comments regarding not understanding why concerts cost so much -- dragging 20 or 30 semi-loads of gear and who knows how many people all over the world is not cheap.

Plus if there was so much profit margin in the concert business wouldn't there be more concert promoters chasing the profits? My guess is that it's a high financial risk business model serving finicky and unpredictable consumers with logistical nightmares that add complexity -- in short, we are probably lucky some companies are willing to take on this risk so we can even see concerts at these prices. We see a lot of the gross revenues, even in this thread, we don't see the net profit or loss figures.

U2 pair up with promoters that guarantee a profit no matter the results of the tour. U2 got $100 million dollar profit guarantee from Michael Cohl for the POPMART tour. Its estimated the band walked away with $300 million dollars profit from just ticket sales on the Vertigo tour. Royalties from merchandise and album sales would drive that figure even higher.

 

[cobl04]

Who cares if The Rolling Stones are bigger than U2? I don't. I would not pay more just to see U2 go #1.

 

[STING2]

Who cares if The Rolling Stones are bigger than U2? I don't. I would not pay more just to see U2 go #1.

Plus, their not bigger based on the latest statistics, so the prices are just right and should only go up slightly on the next tour.

 

[Axver]

I'm surprised at one of Axver's comments regarding not understanding why concerts cost so much -- dragging 20 or 30 semi-loads of gear and who knows how many people all over the world is not cheap.

And Hollywood movies cost truckloads of money too, some have had astronomical budgets and still gone past them, but the last time I checked, I wasn't paying $50-150 to get into the movie theatre.

Considering the profit U2 made from the last tour, I think it's safe to say they would still have been rolling in money even if they'd charged less. And if they'd forego all the useless effects crap, things would get even more profitable.

My guess is that it's a high financial risk business model serving finicky and unpredictable consumers with logistical nightmares that add complexity -- in short, we are probably lucky some companies are willing to take on this risk so we can even see concerts at these prices.

If you're talking about Australia and New Zealand, yes. If you're talking about Europe, a U2 tour is basically guaranteed to do well. I don't see what risk is there.

 

[pepokiss]

for U2 to beat the Stones, it's really easy

do what they did

Stadiums
Arenas


I don't know it theaters, maybe, maybe not

and charge acordingly... sure, they played 5 times MSG and have 150.000 people in 5 days for this tour...

what if they play 2 Giants or Yankee Stadiums and 3 MSG and have like 300.000 people, make a whole lot more of money, and still it'll be the same show (or maybe a different one for arenas and stadiums) for the same 5 shows


and really, the struggle is in the US... outside, at least South America, U2 really didn't satisfied the demand... I mean... 2 shows in brasil?... 2 in argentina, 1 in chile?... for Popmart it was 3, 3 and 1, and believe me, here in Chile it could've been 2 for the Vertigo tour (damn highest price tour tickets and retarded ticket sale system)


next time, here, it should be 3 in brasil, 3 in Argentina and 2 here in Chile

or they can pull a Roling Stone and make a Free concert in brasil (making up for their also horrible ticket sale system)...
that thing wasn't filled up with 1.5 million RS fans... it was 1.3 millions turists...

U2 could pull 2 million