The "new" economy and the new album, tour, etc...

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

u2girlcj

War Child
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
977
Location
Gettin' hot in a photo booth, Sea-attle
If I were in the music industry and fortunate enough to be working on the new U2 album, I would get that puppy to market STAT before this economic crapstorm gets any worse.

Is anyone else worried about how many shows they'll be able to get to next year (and hopefully into 2010)?

I sware, as I ponder a possible recession into a depression, I'm not thinking 'oh I hope I don't lose my house and have to move to a shantytown', I'm more often thinking 'oh I hope this isn't going to affect my ability to see as many U2 shows in as many cities as I want' :reject:

I like to think my priorities are in order :wink:
 
bonnie, i loved your old avatar, but this 90º enhanced av is pretty swell too.

'oh I hope this isn't going to affect my ability to see as many U2 shows in as many cities as I want'

when i say this is my only concern re: economics, i am being totally serious. :up:
 
As someone in the industry, I can tell you that while live performance ticket sales have gone down in the last few years, bands like U2, Springsteen, even Bon Jovi, have nothing to worry about.
They will always sell out MSG etc. for multiple nights. Because their fan base is that big. There is a demand. People know the songs. They love the songs. They will always be there waiting for Streets, Pride, WOWY, etc.
And, these bands still have the media push. Sure, maybe not on MTV anymore, but every rock radio station in the world kisses their ass and will promote the shit out of the latest release.
U2 are probably one of less than a dozen bands that can still sell out anywhere regardless of the economy. Especially now considering the massive appeal of the last two albums.
 
U2 might be able to sell out MSG for three weeks straight, but does that mean they can sell out <insert name of city of 75,000-250,000 people here>'s arena anymore? Somehow, I doubt it.

Maybe (in America) we're in for a small arena tour of medium-sized markets, and then a twenty-to-twenty-five show stadium or arena tour of just the bigger markets... places like NYC (multiple nights), Chicago (multiple nights), Boston (multiple nights), Toronto (multiple nights), Montreal, Houston (I hope), Salt Lake City (?), San Diego, Los Angeles (multiple nights), the Bay area, Seattle, and Vancouver. That's almost more like Zoo TV, I guess... and unlike Vertigo and Elevation, where they hit the major arena markets, went to Europe, and then came back and played every damn arena on the continent for four months straight.
 
They're going to sell out in this country regardless :shrug:

U2 will always sell out in Australia within the first two hours of tickets going on sale.

Of course, except for in Adelaide, but that's because there aren't enough people in Adelaide to fit a stadium anyway. :wink:
 
U2 will always sell out in Australia within the first two hours of tickets going on sale.

Of course, except for in Adelaide, but that's because there aren't enough people in Adelaide to fit a stadium anyway. :wink:

There's more people in Adelaide than there are in all but like eight cities in America. :angry:
 
As someone in the industry, I can tell you that while live performance ticket sales have gone down in the last few years, bands like U2, Springsteen, even Bon Jovi, have nothing to worry about.
They will always sell out MSG etc. for multiple nights. Because their fan base is that big. There is a demand. People know the songs. They love the songs. They will always be there waiting for Streets, Pride, WOWY, etc.
And, these bands still have the media push. Sure, maybe not on MTV anymore, but every rock radio station in the world kisses their ass and will promote the shit out of the latest release.
U2 are probably one of less than a dozen bands that can still sell out anywhere regardless of the economy. Especially now considering the massive appeal of the last two albums.

I would agree in general, but if economic conditions were to get significantly worse, even U2 could take a hit. While it true the entertainment industry is often recession proof, one example being $10 for a two hour movie, $120 dollars for a two hour concert might be different. U2 did very well in 2001 despite the "recession" that year. Unemployment in January of 2001 was only 4.2% and by December had reached 5.7%. Ironically, the average unemployment rate in 2005 was higher than 2001, yet U2 did significantly better on the concert road in North America, but the economy was not in recession at the time either.

Back in 1992, for ZOO TV, U2 were touring in a climate where the average unemployment rate in the United States was nearly 7.5%. But tickets back then were only $30 dollars. Even adjusted for inflation today, your talking about a ticket price of $45 dollars compared to an average ticket price of $120 dollars for U2's new tour in 2009. With the way tickets are priced today, much higher than they were back in 1992, plus unemployment figures not seen since the early 1990s, a U2 tour in 2009 may not prove to be completely recession proof.

But we should soon see what the band plans to do and what they think about these issues when the first tour dates are announced. I think for them to try a full scale stadium tour of the United States like they did in the 1990s would be difficult given the economic circumstances. I could see them doing the same thing they did in 2005-2006 on Vertigo.

Another idea would be to shorten the entire world tour to 60 stadium shows around the world.

25 United States and Canada
25 Europe
2 Mexico
4 South America
2 Australia
1 New Zealand
1 Japan


I think U2 could play 25 stadium shows in the United States and Canada by playing these markets:

Canada

2 Montreal
2 Toronto
1 Winnipeg
1 Edmonton
1 Vancouver

United States

2 Los Angeles
1 San Francisco
2 Chicago
2 Boston
2 New York City
1 Philadelphia
1 Washington DC
1 Hershey
1 Atlanta
1 Miami
1 Columbus OH
1 Dallas
1 Denver
1 Phoenix


I think this would sellout easily even in a more difficult economic environment. USA, Canada and Europe could be completed from June through September. The other 10 shows could be done in November. The plus side of this is that the tour would sellout regardless of economic conditions do to the reduced number of shows. The band gets to put on a big show, while only giving up a few months on the road. The tour will produce a high gross and probably generate just as much media attention as a tour with twice as many dates. The downside of course is that many area's would not get shows, and demand could easily outstrip supply preventing many fans from getting to see the band on tour. Also, the band will not be maximizing the amount of money that could be made by playing a more extensive tour.
 
I would agree in general, but if economic conditions were to get significantly worse, even U2 could take a hit. While it true the entertainment industry is often recession proof, one example being $10 for a two hour movie, $120 dollars for a two hour concert might be different. U2 did very well in 2001 despite the "recession" that year. Unemployment in January of 2001 was only 4.2% and by December had reached 5.7%. Ironically, the average unemployment rate in 2005 was higher than 2001, yet U2 did significantly better on the concert road in North America, but the economy was not in recession at the time either.

Back in 1992, for ZOO TV, U2 were touring in a climate where the average unemployment rate in the United States was nearly 7.5%. But tickets back then were only $30 dollars. Even adjusted for inflation today, your talking about a ticket price of $45 dollars compared to an average ticket price of $120 dollars for U2's new tour in 2009. With the way tickets are priced today, much higher than they were back in 1992, plus unemployment figures not seen since the early 1990s, a U2 tour in 2009 may not prove to be completely recession proof.

But we should soon see what the band plans to do and what they think about these issues when the first tour dates are announced. I think for them to try a full scale stadium tour of the United States like they did in the 1990s would be difficult given the economic circumstances. I could see them doing the same thing they did in 2005-2006 on Vertigo.

Another idea would be to shorten the entire world tour to 60 stadium shows around the world.

25 United States and Canada
25 Europe
2 Mexico
4 South America
2 Australia
1 New Zealand
1 Japan


I think U2 could play 25 stadium shows in the United States and Canada by playing these markets:

Canada

2 Montreal
2 Toronto
1 Winnipeg
1 Edmonton
1 Vancouver

United States

2 Los Angeles
1 San Francisco
2 Chicago
2 Boston
2 New York City
1 Philadelphia
1 Washington DC
1 Hershey
1 Atlanta
1 Miami
1 Columbus OH
1 Dallas
1 Denver
1 Phoenix


I think this would sellout easily even in a more difficult economic environment. USA, Canada and Europe could be completed from June through September. The other 10 shows could be done in November. The plus side of this is that the tour would sellout regardless of economic conditions do to the reduced number of shows. The band gets to put on a big show, while only giving up a few months on the road. The tour will produce a high gross and probably generate just as much media attention as a tour with twice as many dates. The downside of course is that many area's would not get shows, and demand could easily outstrip supply preventing many fans from getting to see the band on tour. Also, the band will not be maximizing the amount of money that could be made by playing a more extensive tour.

ahem, no love for Detroit Rock City?
 
ahem, no love for Detroit Rock City?

Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country and U2 has not soldout a stadium show in Detroit since 1987. I think Columbus would be ideal for this part of the country, pulling in people from Ohio, western Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana.

A larger tour would of course play Detroit, but with only 18 shows in the United States, I don't think Detroit would make the list in light of the current economic conditions and U2's past economic performance there.




As for Australia, U2 was just there two years ago, plus there is already a rumor that the band plan to skip Australia this time around. So, one big show in Sydney and one in Melbourne would be great compared to being skipped.

Again, this is all under a senerio where U2 is playing a reduced tour of just 60 shows. U2 has never done this before, so it is unlikely they would next year.
 
As for Australia, U2 was just there two years ago, plus there is already a rumor that the band plan to skip Australia this time around.



eh... where did that rumor came from? first time I've heard of it


why do I care?... if they skip Australia, they skip LatinAmerica, thus, Chile :angry:
 
As for Australia, U2 was just there two years ago, plus there is already a rumor that the band plan to skip Australia this time around. So, one big show in Sydney and one in Melbourne would be great compared to being skipped.

:huh:

Okay. First of all, surely they are sitting on enough not to have to scale down their tour. Secondly, so what if they were here two years ago. How is that even an arguing point? By the time it gets to us it'll have been longer anyway.

Source for this rumour?? Anyone else not see the point of travelling to an entire continent for two shows???
 
:huh:

Okay. First of all, surely they are sitting on enough not to have to scale down their tour. Secondly, so what if they were here two years ago. How is that even an arguing point? By the time it gets to us it'll have been longer anyway.

Source for this rumour?? Anyone else not see the point of travelling to an entire continent for two shows???

I don't know where the rumour started but it really wouldn't suprise me if we were skipped this time round - it would make me all kinds of sad, but it wouldn't suprise me at all . . . so start lighting candles, asking the universe, selling your souls and crossing your fingers, toes and other bodily bits mighty tight that we get a little look in at least :pray:
 
^^ I'm praying already :yes:

I can't see how the rumour could even be circulating months before the album's even released. I certainly haven't heard it.
 
This rumour would be rubbish. By the time any shows in Australia happen it will have been three years since their last visit, which is well and truly long enough for a huge demand to build up, especially if the album is successful.
Given the huge success of the last tour (444,000 tickets sold, including 208,000 in Sydney and a record 60,000 in Adelaide) they know that Australia is a good market for them. Looking at the facts, they sold more tickets here for Vertigo than the combined total of Zoo TV and Popmart!
Let's all just wait until some sort of tour schedule is announced. I'm thinking this will happen early in the new year. Even then, they are likely to only announce the first one or two legs. The later legs are usually announced at a later date.
SO LET'S NOT WORRY!
 
Yeah, keep the discussion held back it until we get a little bit more going.

By the way, 60,000 people in Footy Park - if you've never been there before, you might not realise how impressive it is. That smashed the record for crowd size for a concert until like a fortnight later when that fucking thing Robbie Williams came over.

But he's all like a junkie now, so when U2 come back they'll completely thrash that record again, all kinds of pronto.
 
I think it will be a relatively short summer stadium tour. I think if people are expecting them to travel around to all kinds of places this time, they will be disappointed.
 
I agree mostly with JOFO. U2 is indeed one of a few bands that does not in the least bit have to worry about selling out any market. Even 2 nights in Portland or Salt Lake(think they did 1 in those places for Vertigo), 18K each night, you will be able to find 36,000 people in those small metro areas that would love to and can afford to see U2.

Yes, this will be a monster recession. We have discussed previous recessions during U2 tours, namely Zoo TV w/1992 unemployment of 7.5% and Elevation 2001 unemployment of about 5.8%. Looking just at recessions, however is not giving us the whole picture. During the JT tour in 1987, unemployment was higher and more people were suffering from job losses and declines in income while the economy was growing than they were in the very mild(by historical standards) recession of 2001. JT-Zoo TV saw the savings and loans crisis and bail out, and a collapse in the real estate market. In short, people had every reason to be worried then, and still bought plenty of U2 tickets. 1987 and 2005 were similar in that the economy was pointing up, but let us remember, that the average American was not seeing real income gains nor were they particulalry satisfied w. economic conditions at these times. Just because there was no recession does not mean that the majority of people were doing well during JT and Vertigo. The numbers suggest they were not. This year, the structural economic indicators are much worse and companies have failed and lost money at a rate not seen since the great depression- and this applies to financial, manufacturing and retail equally. In addition, the 1991-92 and 2001 recessions were led by business and consumers merely reacted later(1991) and then barely adjusted their spending at all(2001). This time, the consumer side(mortgages, declining incomes) has triggered the collapse of the financial industry made inevitable by their unregulated, brain dead 'prices will rise forever binge.' Although the unemployment rate is at 6.5% and these conditions have not been reflected in the rate(we are not at 8 or 10% yet), they will be. Unemployment historically does not peak until AFTER recessions. (1975, 1983, 1992, 2003 etc)

All this is a long way of saying that even though Obama is on a path to restoring confidence and has the knowledge, pragmatism and organizational skills to address our economic situation, any U2 tour will be running during hard times. It will take a couple years no matter who is President. However, 36K for 2 nights in a major arena in a smaller city like Portland will still be easy for U2. Though everyone has taken a hit in their incomes, plenty of people still have disposable income enough to buy a $50 GA floor ticket. Many U2 fans are older now and have very good jobs. Many kids my age like U2 and their parents are still doing just fine, and are even willing to hand them money. Like all of us here, even in hard times, something we really enjoy, we find a way to make happen. My dad is in real estate, has done next to no business for 3 years, had to get a job waiting tables(he is 58 yrs old!) and still pays for his gym membership. Just an example.

A night with U2 costs a whole hell of a lot less than one with the Stones, Police, et al and is not alot of money in the grand scheme of things. The people who need to look out here are those who cater to more frequent entertainment expenses than world tours for popular bands: movie theatres(monthly), restaurants(weekly), coffee shops(daily), catering(corporate events-holidays, summer outings, etc).
 
:uhoh: now you've all made me slightly worried. It's hard enough to get tickets for shows in Australia as it is. Even if you camp out some douche with connections is going to swoop in and buy up all the good seats within the first two minutes.:sad:
 
I really don't think the current economic conditions are going to put a damper on U2's upcoming tour next year. For one, I don't think it's going to last that long. And two, there are plenty of examples from the past where hugely successful tours took place during similar conditions. A perfect example would be David Bowie's 1983 Serious Moonlight tour. In 1983, the US was in a major recession but Bowie earned his highest grossing tour EVER, at that point in time. He was instantly filling arenas & stadiums worldwide.

Anyways...

If U2 decide to play stadiums in North America next year, considering the average price of next year's tour will be about $115-$120, and unless they skip other nearby markets, they'll only be able to fill stadiums in these markets (minus return engagements):

NYC/NJ (3)
Boston (2)
Philadelphia
Washington, DC (*)
Miami (*)
Atlanta (*)
Phoenix (*)
Las Vegas (*)
Los Angeles (2)
San Francisco/Oakland
Edmonton (2)
Winnipeg
Chicago (2)
Detroit (*)
Toronto (2)
Montreal

And even some of the above stadiums will have their capacities greatly reduced (*) in order for them to even play this many shows.



Worldwide, considering their tour history, my guess is that it'll look something like this:

North America

April/May/June - Arenas & Stadiums

UK/Europe

July/August - Stadiums

North America

September/October/November - Arenas & Stadiums


Each leg will comprise of 30-35 shows. I don't think they'll tour outside of North America or the UK/Europe because they were just in South America in early 2006 and Australia, New Zealand & Japan in late 2006...and they never return to these areas that often.

Tickets will be basically 25% higher than the Vertigo tour's prices and will be tier-priced at, $55, $120 & $200.

And the tour will gross around $375 million. However, if they do tour outside of North America & UK/Europe and hit South America, Australia, New Zealand & Japan, the tour will gross about $475 million...
 
I agree mostly with JOFO. U2 is indeed one of a few bands that does not in the least bit have to worry about selling out any market. Even 2 nights in Portland or Salt Lake(think they did 1 in those places for Vertigo), 18K each night, you will be able to find 36,000 people in those small metro areas that would love to and can afford to see U2.

It will take a couple years no matter who is President. However, 36K for 2 nights in a major arena in a smaller city like Portland will still be easy for U2.

Is that a joke? :hmm:
 
Is that a joke? :hmm:

Is it a joke? No, look at the past, U2 will absolutely have no problem doing this, never have. AC/DC is selling out as we speak. Coldplay sold out this summer w/o anywhere near the fan base of U2.

The more appropriate question would be to those who think U2 wont be able to sell out: Is that a joke? The burden of proof is on you guys, as they have sold out stadiums and arenas for years regardless of economic conditions.
 
Back
Top Bottom