U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f288/)
-   -   High Cost of Ticket Prices (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f288/high-cost-of-ticket-prices-39542.html)

MBH 04-29-2002 07:16 PM

High Cost of Ticket Prices
 
I am curious to see what everyone thinks of the rising costs of ticket prices. The following excerpt is taken from an interview that was completed with Paul McCartney last week. I think that the prices are ridiculous but if people continue to pay them, then they will continue to rise. U2's prices are also very high and these prices are not even as high as some others(WHO, McCartney, CSNY, etc...) However, that doesn't make it right. Kid Rock said that he took sponsorship $ from Coors so that ticket prices could stay reasonable. As far as ticket prices go, Pearl Jam is the most admirable band out there. Enjoy the excerpt!:


No matter where the tour goes, one thing McCartney is unapologetic about is the relatively high cost of tickets for his shows, which run from $50 to $250. "This is what I do for a living," he said. "If I earn money on this tour, a lot of it will go to charity. As far as the high prices of the tickets, they're not high compared to what everyone else charges. I say to the promoters, 'What do U2 or the Rolling Stones charge?' I figure I'm somewhere in that ballpark. Tickets [for this tour] start at $50, which isn't that high. Actually, the Stones are going to charge more than us [for their 2002 tour], so there's your story."


[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 04-29-2002).]

zooropamanda 04-29-2002 07:40 PM

Yes im very interested to know exactly why prices are so high. Do U2 still firmly believe in no advertising thus making the ticket prices high?
I really dont understand it.
Yes, they have to make a living and a band in U2's realm should cost more than say a band like Garbage, simply because they've earned their keep. But U2 have always been the ones who said they weren't in it for the money, and that they want to keep their ticket prices low.
grrrr as soon as these types of conversations come up I turn into "Bitter Aussies are rejected by U2" ZooManda

I think McCartney's measuring scale is ludicrous. Hasn't he got a brain to figure out what he wants to charge his fans?
Its like those stupid Hollywood actors demanding 20 mill per film just because some other actor gets that already.
People are dying in the world and bloody Hollywood actors are being paid 20 million dollars to make a stupid action film
arghhh
sorry way off topic!

Maybe these rockstars should use their heads and come together to form a group to discuss reasonable ticket prices. If they believe what they preach, they should not be playing only to the rich.
Music for the people? Yeah, right.

MBH 04-29-2002 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zooropamanda:
Yes im very interested to know exactly why prices are so high. Do U2 still firmly believe in no advertising thus making the ticket prices high?
I really dont understand it.
Yes, they have to make a living and a band in U2's realm should cost more than say a band like Garbage, simply because they've earned their keep. But U2 have always been the ones who said they weren't in it for the money, and that they want to keep their ticket prices low.
grrrr as soon as these types of conversations come up I turn into "Bitter Aussies are rejected by U2" ZooManda

I think McCartney's measuring scale is ludicrous. Hasn't he got a brain to figure out what he wants to charge his fans?
Its like those stupid Hollywood actors demanding 20 mill per film just because some other actor gets that already.
People are dying in the world and bloody Hollywood actors are being paid 20 million dollars to make a stupid action film
arghhh
sorry way off topic!

Maybe these rockstars should use their heads and come together to form a group to discuss reasonable ticket prices. If they believe what they preach, they should not be playing only to the rich.
Music for the people? Yeah, right.

Some good points here. Did U2 ever officially say why they didn't tour Australia? Although it is likely that they didn't tour Australia this time around b/c of the lack of $ they could earn, I am curious is they ever touched on it in an interview or elsewhere.

Bono irked me during the announcement of the Elevation tour on MTV back in March of 2001 as he stressed the fact that the GA tix were only $45, yet failed to mention the other seats that were $85 and $130. In a later interview someone asked Bono why some tickets to U2 shows were so costly and he said, "I think we're worth it."--That is so arrogant and comments like that are the exact reason why people dislike Bono.

Maybe we can't have it both ways. On one hand I love the idea that U2 does not sell their music or receive corporate sponsorship from big corporations(although isn't soundtracks selling music?) But on the other hand we want ticket prices to be lowered.

What is the best answer?

amybatt 04-29-2002 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MBH:
Some good points here. Did U2 ever officially say why they didn't tour Australia?
I don't believe the band ever said. But a golden circle ticket worth US$130 is AUS$241. Can you imagine them asking for, and fans paying, that? It had to be pure economics...between ticket price scandals and what it would've cost them there to put the show on, they might as well just drive down a freeway and throw cash out the window.

zooropamanda 04-29-2002 08:32 PM

No MBH, they have never come out and said anything officially. Fans have apparently been told by McGuinness that is for the financial reasons.
I think its a cop out that they haven't even given us some sort of reasoning.
I guess what Amy says is true, but I dont understand why other bands can come out here, then. Other bands which are much smaller and dont charge the big prices. If they can come, why can't U2?

Also let it be known that I saw u2 this tour, so Im very lucky, very lucky and very spoiled. I owe u2 a lot, so i dont begrudge them trying to make a living lol.
Its the other people here that werent in my position to do so, that I get bitter about.
But this wasn't a thread about the poor Aussies lol
Sorry for the segue.

MBH 04-29-2002 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zooropamanda:
No MBH, they have never come out and said anything officially. Fans have apparently been told by McGuinness that is for the financial reasons.
I think its a cop out that they haven't even given us some sort of reasoning.
I guess what Amy says is true, but I dont understand why other bands can come out here, then. Other bands which are much smaller and dont charge the big prices. If they can come, why can't U2?

Also let it be known that I saw u2 this tour, so Im very lucky, very lucky and very spoiled. I owe u2 a lot, so i dont begrudge them trying to make a living lol.
Its the other people here that werent in my position to do so, that I get bitter about.
But this wasn't a thread about the poor Aussies lol
Sorry for the segue.

Is there much resentment toward U2 in Australia? How popular are U2 in Down Under? Didn't U2 tour Australia in 1997 on the POPMART Tour? The financials for that tour were much greater than for the Elevation tour so I don't understand why they toured Aust.(if they did) for POPMART but not for Elevation.

This discussion provides evidence to the recent comments made by Liam Gallahger that U2 are in it for $(this is an entirely different topic, btw; I thought the Gallagher Bros. were U2 fans?)

Hope you can fill me in...



sulawesigirl4 04-29-2002 08:53 PM

Supply and demand. If you don't like the price, don't pay it. Pretty simple economics.

cass 04-29-2002 09:05 PM

As it happens, I came across my ZooTV Australia ticket yesterday, $64. My friend threw away my Popmart ticket the morning after the concert https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/frown.gif but it was $110. So just yesterday I was thinking $174, for 2 of THE most amazing musical nights of my life. Absolutley fan*******tastic.So I dunno, all those roadies, all that fine equipment, all that travelling , all that planning, all those songs, all that beauty.
A concert ticket is a sadly large chunk out of my income, but I plan and save for bands and artists I love. I think the experiences I have had so far have been well worth the price. As far as U2 not coming to Australia with the elevation tour....2001AD was a mad year. I didn't know what to expect next. I was just glad to have the ATYCLB CD in my hands ... and my sons.

the olive 04-29-2002 10:04 PM

The prices have gone up a lot, but only really for the "higher end" seats. You will notice that most bands still charge a reasonable amount for the crapier seats, but they are starting to charge the big bucks for the good seats ("Golden Circle"). These are the seats that scalpers (brokers) traditionally got their hands on and then sold them for triple the face value. It has been MUCH easier to get good seats from ticketmaster now that the profit margin for potential scalpers is shrinking. In the last few months I have gotten excellent seats (first 10 rows floor) from ticketmaster for some large concerts (The Who, The Eagles etc.) This would have been unheard of 5 years ago.
Personally I would rather the band gets the cash than a scummy "broker".

zooropamanda 04-29-2002 10:12 PM

MBH, unfortunately I think there is some resentment. U2 are HUGE here. They have come here every tour since 1984. The album went something like 5 times platinum. U2 are very big in Australia and would sell out arenas without a doubt.
Because they are so loved here, there is resentment. Radio djs are especially peeved.Anytime a U2 song has been played of late, you are likely to hear djs go on about how sucky it is that they've jipped us.
Yes, I agree exactly about what you've said about popmart. Maybe they didnt make enough money because some shows didnt sell out. But Elevation is nothing in comparison cost wise, so it just makes no sense to me.

All that being said, I would still pay big bucks to see them. For me, its worth it, I can plan ahead to afford it. But for many regular fans, that certainly isn't the case.

Saracene 04-29-2002 10:43 PM

I don't think U2 owe anyone an explanation of why they're not touring Australia or any other country for that matter. The only situation where I'd feel that an explanation was due would be if they cancelled the visit -after- the concerts were announced and the tickets sold. Otherwise they don't owe anything to anyone.

Also, I believe that our miserable dollar is in far worse shape than it was during POPMart (and even then they only had one show in Melbourne instead of the planned two), so if they did come here they would have to play to the rich people only and they probably didn't want that. They may love their jobs but I don't think they're prepared to go off somewhere to lose money, cause that's just disrespecting yourself as a professional. Corporate sponsorship would probably help out, but then they'd be shred to bits by the fans crying "F***ing sellouts!!!" I just don't think we can have it both ways. As for U2 saying that "they're not in it for money"... I've read a JT-period article recently where Bono clearly stated that they're willing to work very hard in order to achieve a position of considerable wealth and power in order to affect the people the way they want it.

Of course it's ridiculous that the rock stars get paid so much. I mean, even yer holy Eddie Vedder is about a gazillion times better off than your average fireman whose work, realistically, is of far greater importance.

martha 04-29-2002 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MBH:

"As far as the high prices of the tickets, they're not high compared to what everyone else charges. I say to the promoters, 'What do U2 or the Rolling Stones charge?' I figure I'm somewhere in that ballpark. Tickets [for this tour] start at $50, which isn't that high. Actually, the Stones are going to charge more than us [for their 2002 tour], so there's your story."


"But Mom, everyone else jumped off the roof! Why can't I?"

Sorry, not a big Macca fan.

------------------

You have fairly generic bunions. --my podiatrist, 4-11-02

kobayashi 04-29-2002 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
Supply and demand. If you don't like the price, don't pay it. Pretty simple economics.
hear hear. or here here. whichever.

they'll get to aus soon enough. i hope.


kobayashi 04-29-2002 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Saracene:
I don't think U2 owe anyone an explanation of why they're not touring Australia or any other country for that matter.
i agree with you but when U2 position themseleves as a band 'of the people' they should expect this reaction.

STING2 04-30-2002 12:05 AM

I think Sulawesi has it right. U2 ever since the first tour for Boy, has charged what their market value is when it comes to ticket prices. U2 do not determine their market value. The public does. U2 have for every tour in their history, charged the highest ticket price possible, but low enough so they could possibly sell out every seat even in a small market like Kansas City. They charge what ever ticket prices will give them the maximum GROSS per show. They have done this since the earliest days. A band like Pearl Jam only had one tour where their ticket price was really below market value and that was in 1998. For the tour in 2000, most shows, although they came close, did not sell out. This shows that Pearl Jam, just like U2, is charging ticket prices based on their market value.

In the music business, if an artist does not make what they are worth, then someone else will.

This is not the first time U2 has skipped Australia. They did not go there for the first 3 tours. They skipped OZZ on Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. Yes they did return for Lovetown in 1989, but they was a different tour with lots of song from a new album Rattle and Hum and came nearly two years after the end of the Joshua Tree tour. The ZOOROPA tour was not the same thing that Americans saw a year earlier for ZOO TV.

I'd say the main reason that U2 did not come to Australia was time! U2 wanted to start out in Arena's to play it safe, although it became clear rather quick they could have done stadiums. They were going to do Arena's and wanted to put the full effort on the US market where sales of POP were very flat compared to other territories. In making sure they restablished their market position in the USA they spent 2/3s of the available time they would really consider for a world tour in the USA. The band has often said they will not do a tour of the length of ZOO TV again. I'm sure that OZZ will get a visit with the next studio album. The number of shows will be smaller then on Elevation per territory, but most likely will be in Stadiums.

This is the music business. If an artist is not willing to make what their worth, then someone else will!

Saracene 04-30-2002 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kobayashi:
i agree with you but when U2 position themseleves as a band 'of the people' they should expect this reaction.
That's true also, but it doesn't make this sort of reaction any less unreasonable. I certainly don't remember U2 ever saying that they were into it to please all of the fans.

[This message has been edited by Saracene (edited 04-30-2002).]

Hewson 04-30-2002 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
Supply and demand. If you don't like the price, don't pay it. Pretty simple economics.
I, having a BA in economics, must concur. https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/smile.gif
Look at the number of empty seats U2 had. Obviously they weren't too expensive for the market.
Its happening throughout the concert and sports industry, tickets, especially good seats, are rising rapidly.
Saw a funny picture in the Sunday Boston Herald of a Montreal Expos game, showing the closest seats to the field almost completetly empty, and the next level of seating (obviously cheaper) about half filled.


V Nura 04-30-2002 07:23 AM

honestly, think about basketball games, if you want good seats to a lakers game it will cost you well over 500 dollars...u2 is letting you be on the FLOOR for 45 dollars. now take the big act shos today...and see how close 45 dollars gets you

Popmartijn 04-30-2002 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zooropamanda:
But U2 have always been the ones who said they weren't in it for the money, and that they want to keep their ticket prices low.

IIRC, U2 never said that they want to have very low ticket prices, but that they want to offer value for money. That's a big difference.
U2 concerts are not cheap, but the experience is priceless. U2's merchandising is also not cheap, but their stuff is of good quality (my Zooropa tour-shirt still looks great).

Quote:


Maybe these rockstars should use their heads and come together to form a group to discuss reasonable ticket prices. If they believe what they preach, they should not be playing only to the rich.
Music for the people? Yeah, right.

The problem is that even if they set reasonable ticket prices, they'll still only play to the rich as those can only afford the prices of the scalpers, who will have all the tickets. Only when ticket prices reflect the actual market value will those scalpers not have any profit. As Sulawesigirl said, it's the simple law of supply and demand. The Elevation Tour was a complete sell-out, but except in a few cases I did not see very high ticket prices by scalpers (Ebay). So the prices more or less reflected their market value.

C ya!

Marty


------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

MBH 04-30-2002 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by martha:
"But Mom, everyone else jumped off the roof! Why can't I?"

Sorry, not a big Macca fan.


LOL, LOL, LOL....

I totally agree with you(although I like Mac). His explanation is not an explanation. He is simply ignoring the fact that his ticket prices are outrageous and pointing the finger at other artists. 2 wrongs DO NOT = 1 right!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 PM.

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