U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   General Tour Discussions (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f280/)
-   -   The Rolling Stones got it right. (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f280/the-rolling-stones-got-it-right-126833.html)

Klink 05-11-2005 12:51 PM

The Rolling Stones got it right.
 
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 05-11-2005 12:56 PM

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 05-11-2005 12:58 PM

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

MTEdge 05-11-2005 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Klink
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 05-11-2005 01:16 PM

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 05-11-2005 01:19 PM

They`re going to MONCTON?!?? :shocked:

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 05-11-2005 01:24 PM

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 05-11-2005 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MTEdge
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 05-11-2005 01:39 PM

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 05-11-2005 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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 05-11-2005 02:01 PM

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 05-11-2005 02:02 PM

Re: The Rolling Stones got it right.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by 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

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 05-11-2005 02:09 PM

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 05-11-2005 02:12 PM

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

STING2 05-11-2005 02:13 PM

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 05-11-2005 02:13 PM

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 05-11-2005 02:28 PM

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 05-11-2005 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MTEdge


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 05-11-2005 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.
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 05-11-2005 02:33 PM

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com