The Rolling Stones got it right.

[nbcrusader]

Maybe on U2's third farewell tour they can play all the "interesting" towns.....

 

[Lila64]

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

I love U2 to death, but if I had to pay $400 for a ticket to see them, I would have some hesitations... They are the ONLY band I will "Pay" for (ebay/ticket agents,...), and I have had to go that route for the last 2 tours. $400 for a ticket to a stadium show seems outrageous. Perhaps, like MTEdge stated, RS is choosing to scalp their own tickets to make it more difficult for the scalpers to do so themselves. If they have to pay a thousand bucks for a pair of tickets and then turn around and find a buyer for them, well... you see my point (I hope). The Tom Petty's and Pearl Jam's of the world are out to make music and not gouge the fan. I thought Petty's ticket prices last time out were about $70 (I could be wrong). They know their fans are hard working average Americans who can't afford to spend their rent/mortgage/car payment on a concert, so in that respect I think they do their best to keep the pricing down. I met a person who worked for Clear Channel at a party once who stated the artist determines how much they want to be paid for the show, and the tickets are priced accordingly. So when McCartney was here in 2002 (last tour) for example, I believe he wanted one million to play Staples Center/L.A. My face value ticket then was about $130+ "Fees" for section 206 (directly opposite the stage). This year my 2 tickets came out to $294 (with fees). I'm almost in the same section, except one lower, section 107. I mean the man is a billionaire, and he knows he can bring in the fans and the money. I'd just like to see it go to charity. Then it wouldn't be such a big pill to swallow.

I just don't see the Stones being worth it anymore. They are not still producing relevant music, like U2. I know they will have a new album, but folks, check the calendar. The fans who have seen them over the years may choose not to see them again if they are priced out of the market, and the new generations of fans, well, how are they going to afford it? I attended plenty of stadium shows back in the 80s (Rolling Stones, The Who, U2, US Festival-Metal day), and for me, I just don't enjoy it as much as going to say, a Staples Center size place. You can't see anything, and it's crowded and you end up watching video screens all night. BTW, one of the last times The Who toured (sans Entwistle), they played the Greek Theater in Los Angeles (about 5000-6000 seat outdoor venue). The prime tickets there were about $300-$500 as well. If you sat higher up/farther back, they were more "affordable". My friends told me that a lot of the lower/middle section was less populated because they couldn't sell the tickets, and I believe they were able to possibly move down. I would have loved to attended - to see them in a venue that size, but I couldn't see spending that kind of money.

Like I said, I will only splurge on U2, you know, those 4 Irish lads making such a ruckus across the U.S.,...

...All Because of U2...

 

[matt_tx00]

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.

Yeah, this is pretty much what Madonna and Paul McCartney did on their last tours. They charged $300/each for their top tickets. By doing so, the ticket brokers were unable to make any profit on the highest-priced tickets, as only these artists' hard-core fans were willing to pay these kinds of prices for so many seats. The artists ended up pocketing the profits themselves. By contrast, the ticket brokers are making loads of money on U2 tickets this year because they are more "bargain priced" - particularly the GAs.

In a way it makes more sense to price the close seats higher since they never show up on Ticketmaster anyway (or seems like it). The brokers will probably end up with all of these top-notch Rolling Stones tickets and will be selling them for $1000/each or something like that. Might as well make the face value $463/each. What difference does it make?

The bands that really win out with the fans are the ones that break through this whole Ticketmaster/ticket broker underground agreement thing where the brokers end up with all the best tickets. The bands that provide all the best tickets for members of their fan clubs at face value.

Someday this whole ticket broker/Ticketmaster scam will come crashing down. This will probably single-handedly save the struggling concert touring industry.

 

[Lila64]

sucks for us that TM has a monopoly on the ticketing system. I noticed that many of the brokers offices were located right across the street from Staples Center in L.A. Don't know if that's how it is in other cities. Found it kind of....suspicious

 

[xellente]

are the accountants done?

Well...if you guys think the U2.com membership thing was unfair, here in So-CAL (i dont know about the rest of the country) ...American Express memebrs get a PreSale......AMERICAN EXPRESS CRAD OWNERS GET FIRST DIBS!!! ha ha!....the tour brought to you by MCJagger HOME MORTAGE gives first dibs one week ahead presale to American express card holders..ppppffffff!...

yeah U2 could learn a few things from these guys:

1. stop making good music

2. become a nostalgia act

3. charge outraguos prices

4. and tour only when you feel like geting a little cash.

oh, by the way..U2's albums drive the tour...

RS tour when they feel they can make some cash....

they are not even finished with the album and they booking dates....

ppssshhhaawww

 

[BWU2Buffs]

That is pathetic. Assuming they've used sponsors before, it should come as no surprise why they gross so much money on their tours.

I can't speak to the recent tours, but my RS ticket stub from the 80s says 'sponsored by Jovan' -- in fact, if memory serves me, the Jovan sponsored tour might have been the first time a major act went out with a sponsor / all of the commercial tie-ins.

IMO, the Stones and McCartney should just be honest, call the tour the "401K Enhancement Tour"

 

[Val]

I don't agree that u2 tixs are too expensive.

 

[Canadiens1131]

The Rolling Stones are charging tickets starting at $100 because the general public has paid a lot and will continue to pay a lot for acts like Sir Paul and the Stones.

I somehow doubt they are doing this tour because Keith needs a new add-on to one of his houses, folks, they've been set for life as far as money goes. It might be interesting to consider that they might be touring because they enjoy playing live and they are promoting a new album. If the Stones were just in it for the money they could have stopped touring a long time ago and just survived on the money in the bank, new albums and merchandise.

The fact is that the majority of The Rolling Stones' fanbase is 30 and up, and those people have more disposable income than some of the younger fans.

 

[BWU2Buffs]

The fact is that the majority of The Rolling Stones' fanbase is 30 and up, and those people have more disposable income than some of the younger fans.

My hunch is that it's closer to 40 and up; but the disposable income variable is a valid point.

 

[STING2]

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.

Their actually about the same. The average price on the first leg Arena tour for Vertigo is $100. The average price for the Rolling Stones shows in Arena's is $110.

Don't be fooled by the high price and cheap seats.

 

[STING2]

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.

For the most part all these artist are the same in that they have ticket prices based on their "market value". Supply and Demand determine the price.

 

[STING2]

In response to the Pearl Jam comment, I agree they are not on the same level as McCartney, Stones, or U2. But, even without a hit album/radio play, they still easily sell out arenas and demand still outstrips supply. While they wouldn't fare nearly as well if they decided to gouge for $100/ticket, given the plethora of sellouts it is safe to say they could still price upwards of their current prices (~$35/ticket) and still sell out and still have tix well under those big name acts above. In other words, they are *definitely* cutting their fans a break.

Re: the comment on staging costs, a good point indeed. The Stones and U2 both use elaborate stages and Bruce and Pearl Jam don't. But the stage costs are generally absorbed by tour sponsors (for the Stones) or by a single promoter, ie ClearChannel/Michael Cohl (for U2). They do impact the ticket prices somewhat, but it still does not account for the fact that Bruce/PJ play longer sets and play more songs.

Re: the $200 price, sure inflation will be part of that...but U2 is slowly - but surely - pricing out the "middle class" fan. U2 concerts are mighty expensive these days....I wish U2 had retired before they became so pandering to commercialism/corporate culture the past 5 years, but now I feel they will rival the Stones for length of time together, and ultimately ticket prices as well.

Most Pearl Jam shows did NOT sellout on the last tour. There were tickets available for most shows up until showtime, despite the the fact ticket prices were low. They still had strong attendance of course and tickets were obviously priced at the correct market value.

U2 prices their tickets the same way they always have, based on their market value.

 

[BVS]

Their actually about the same. The average price on the first leg Arena tour for Vertigo is $100. The average price for the Rolling Stones shows in Arena's is $110.

Don't be fooled by the high price and cheap seats.

Ok I live in Chicago and the only prices for Soldier Field(according to Ticketmaster) are 60, 100, 160 and 450, and 90% are 100 and higher how the hell can the average be the same?

 

[MTEdge]

Ok I live in Chicago and the only prices for Soldier Field(according to Ticketmaster) are 60, 100, 160 and 450, and 90% are 100 and higher how the hell can the average be the same?

Sting2 was comparing only Arena prices, I believe. So it would appear that Soldier Field's pricing would not qualify within that comparison.

 

[BVS]

Sting2 was comparing only Arena prices, I believe. So it would appear that Soldier Field's pricing would not qualify within that comparison.

Prices are pretty much the same for arenas, let's take Phillips Arena the prices are 62, 97, 162, and 352. The majority of the tickets are the 97 range according to the sponsor of the tour, so still it's a much higher average.

 

[Lila64]

IMO, the Stones and McCartney should just be honest, call the tour the "401K Enhancement Tour"

 

[cmb737]

I know this is a bit off of where this conversation has gone (pricing as opposed to stadium/baseball park/arena mix) but I find it interesting and relateable to U2's decision to do Arena's in the US that there are ZERO new football stadiums on the RS tour.

I think that a gigantic reason that U2 is not playing stadiums is the decline in the amount of good stadiums (if they were ever good in the first place) to hold a concert. If a stage was placed in the end zone in most of the new type football stadiums there would be very little straight on seating as a MAJORITY of seats in the modern stadiums are along the side lines. Look at where they are playing baseball parks...

Boston - Fenway Park (Gillette Stadium...new Football Stadium)
Detroit - Comerica Park (Lions play in a Dome...well that says enough)
Pittsburgh - PNC Park (Heinze Field...new Football Stadium)
Anaheim - Angel Stadium of Anaheim (no gigantic football stadium there..save the LA Colesium)
San Diego - Petco Park (the exception...as Qualcomm exists still but is most likely too big for the size market, yes even though they played there before...tix were easy to get. Also Petco Park is a brilliant new building located downtown right near the harbor and who wouldn't want to see a show there?)
San Fran - SBC Park (Monster Park is old, windy...and the stadium in Oakland hosts a NFL game that day)

Not precise..but pretty good pattern. You will notice these dates are all well after MLB has ended (or at least in these cities...go RED SOX!). These parks would not be available for U2 as the tour overlaps the MLB season.

In conclusion, I don't think it is the only reason one decides to play stadiums or not (as there are still many many giant college stadiums) but I think the new designs that are being seen around the NFL have signaled a decline in stadium touring in the US. Perhaps I am full of it, but thought the pattern was a bit interesting.

 

[Lila64]

and there are not many bands/artists of the "star" caliber that can play a stadium anymore... (*Star being U2, Stones,...)

 

[cmb737]

The fact is that the majority of The Rolling Stones' fanbase is 30 and up, and those people have more disposable income than some of the younger fans.

Being 28 myself, would have only been 15 for the first leg of Zoo TV in the US, I would like to see a breakdown of the majority of U2 fans. I think they are most likely in this demographic as well. Especially after seeing 5 shows on this tour. It might be a simple majority and not an overwhelming one like the Stones...but U2's fanbase is definitely getting up there as well. We are starting to see 3 generations of fans show up at concerts...and well you know you have been around a while if that happens.

Just the fact that The Joshua Tree was released 18 years, and Boy was released 26 years ago says a lot.

 

[knox]

Yeah, U2's only about 15 years behind the Stones...that's not even a full generation.

 

[cmb737]

and there are not many bands/artists of the "star" caliber that can play a stadium anymore... (*Star being U2, Stones,...)

In the US. Different story everywhere else.

Just a sampling of artists playing tours this year with stadiums scheduled:

Oasis
Elton John
Coldplay
Green Day
U2
The Rolling Stones

There are a lot of acts that can fill a stadium. I am sure if Bruce was touring with the E Street Band and not doing an accoustic tour it would include stadiums, Madonna is not touring, Michael Jackson is in court...jk.

It's really a US thing...too many better venue choices between all the arenas, ampitheaters, and theaters.

 

[Lila64]

In the US. Different story everywhere else.

Just a sampling of artists playing tours this year with stadiums scheduled:

Oasis
Elton John
Coldplay
Green Day
U2
The Rolling Stones

There are a lot of acts that can fill a stadium. I am sure if Bruce was touring with the E Street Band and not doing an accoustic tour it would include stadiums, Madonna is not touring, Michael Jackson is in court...jk.

It's really a US thing...too many better venue choices between all the arenas, ampitheaters, and theaters.

Well again, considering the state of music, that's not a lot. It's a few select bands. Oasis is playing the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles/Hollywood. Still a big city, but not a stadium per se. Elton John, well he's been around 30+ years, ie established. Surprised about Green Day and Coldplay. I realize they are popular even if they aren't my cup of tea. And sure, Bruce, is another established/star and could fill a venue anytime anywhere... Like I said, there's not a lot of artists/bands that can fill a stadium, except for the established big names. And once they stop touring, that will be the end of stadiums, as there doesn't seem to be bands coming up, not like they were in the 70s/80s. Hope that made sense. I've had too much blue crack today

 

[cmb737]

Don't worry, it did make sense. I do respectfully partially disagree. I think the decline of the stadium show is due much more to the rise in quality areans and other venues and the concert industry overall in decline. People are losing interest in paying hundreds of dollars to be a football field away, or on a lawn. I don't think it is necessarily due to the decline in stadium filling bands. There are many many bands out there are continually fail to meet demand. These bands I mentioned just happen to be on tour.

There are other bands who could play stadiums (perhaps not a stadium world tour...but certain markets) that chose not to...or aren't currently touring:

Radiohead
Metallica
Pearl Jam
Madonna
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Paul McCartney
REM
Robbie Williams
Cher
David Hasselhoff
Britney Spears
Depeche Mode
The Cure
Dave Matthews Band
Stereophonics

There are lots...and always have been. Not even considering the boy bands that went around the world several times each in stadiums. I just think people don't want to see stadium shows (especially in the US), and they are not as successful. Also there is a ton less risk for artists to do smaller venues and higher profit margins. I would argue it has nothing to do with quality of bands.

On the Oasis comment...Oasis has never blown up here in the US. Even at their gigantic stage...they never had smash hits and tours in the US. Shame.

 

[Lila64]

Yes, it is a shame about Oasis. Although I'm only familiar with '(What's The Story) Morning Glory' and a few other songs. I did see them when they toured with The Black Crowes...

I see your point about there being more bands that could fill up bigger venues, but I do agree that the demand is no longer there for people to attend such large shows. And possibly the security issue may totally change the equation. I think they should stick to arenas that are no bigger than the arenas that the basketball teams play in, ie Staples Center,... After that, they become way too impersonal, and would keep me from attending. There's no one anymore, at least for me, to see in a stadium. It would even be difficult for me to attend U2 at a stadium, no matter how much love and adoration I have for the band. Or am I just too old and cynical? Again, I did the Stones, The Who tours of the 80s - been there, done that.

Oh, also the decline in stadiums could be due to sponsorship... Every frickin' arena has some corporate name attached to it. I mean the Universal Amphitheater in Universal City/Universal Studios Hollywood is now the Gibson Univeral Amp. or Gibson Amp... I'll never call it that of course, just bugs the out of me!

 

[bridonohue]

RS tour when they feel they can make some cash....

they are not even finished with the album and they booking dates....

ppssshhhaawww

U2 would never book dates without finishing the album.

cough popmart cough

 

[STING2]

Don't worry, it did make sense. I do respectfully partially disagree. I think the decline of the stadium show is due much more to the rise in quality areans and other venues and the concert industry overall in decline. People are losing interest in paying hundreds of dollars to be a football field away, or on a lawn. I don't think it is necessarily due to the decline in stadium filling bands. There are many many bands out there are continually fail to meet demand. These bands I mentioned just happen to be on tour.

There are other bands who could play stadiums (perhaps not a stadium world tour...but certain markets) that chose not to...or aren't currently touring:

Radiohead
Metallica
Pearl Jam
Madonna
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Paul McCartney
REM
Robbie Williams
Cher
David Hasselhoff
Britney Spears
Depeche Mode
The Cure
Dave Matthews Band
Stereophonics

There are lots...and always have been. Not even considering the boy bands that went around the world several times each in stadiums. I just think people don't want to see stadium shows (especially in the US), and they are not as successful. Also there is a ton less risk for artists to do smaller venues and higher profit margins. I would argue it has nothing to do with quality of bands.

On the Oasis comment...Oasis has never blown up here in the US. Even at their gigantic stage...they never had smash hits and tours in the US. Shame.

Radiohead have never played stadiums(40,000+) anywhere and considering the number of albums they have sold, its easy to see why. They do have a strong fan base and have played some shows to 25,000 or 30,000 people without any strong support acts, but there is no evidence that shows they could do a stadium tour. The UK might be an exception though.

Metallica have only played stadiums with 4 or 5 strong support acts on the bill. Essentially festivals. This does not count. There may have been a few European shows where this was not the case, and certainly San Francisco and New York City they might have a shot without the support acts.

Pearl Jam, they use to have the ability in the USA a decade ago, but not anymore. Most shows on the arena and shed tour did not sellout.

Madonna, perhaps in some of the big cities in the USA although I doubt it, and probably Europe as well.

Red Hot Chili Peppers, in many places in Europe they can play stadiums, but not in North America.

Paul McCartney, he definitely can in most places.

REM, only in Europe and a few other places, not NORTH America.

Robbie Williams while he can play stadiums in many places outside North America, he would be booked in theaters in the USA.

Cher struggles to sellout arena's.

David Hasselhoff, perhaps in Germany once upon a time.

Britney Spears, another artist that struggles to sellout arena's, she is no where close to play stadiums.

Depeche Mode, no where in the world except maybe LA and now I would doubt that.

The Cure their at best an arena band these days. At their peak that did a few stadium shows in the big cities.

Dave Matthews Band, they used to be able to do stadiums in the USA, but they have had to scale that back. They can't even play arena's outside North America.

Stereophonics, definitely not in the USA, not sure about Europe or other places.


The only artist on this list that has the potential to do a global stadium tour is Paul McCartney.

 

[Lemonfix]

I think the reason that U2 is playing multiple nights/skipping some usual cities has to do with the circumstances that led them to postpone the tour in the first place. It's easier that way for Edge to leave and be with the fam if they aren't moving around as much. Just a thought.

 

[cmb737]

Sting2...my whole point was nobody really plays stadiums in North America. That is the caviat to my whole list of bands. There is no point really in debating each bands status since the essence of what I was saying is that North American fans don't generally respond well (i.e. purchase great amounts of tix for) stadium shows. There are markets where every one of those bands would fill a stadium, perhaps not 120,000...and I was just pointing out that it is less a reflection of the quality of the bands available today but more the economics of playing stadiums that is causing a decline in stadium tours.

I would wager that when most of the bands do go out, they are actually playing in front of more people now than bands that played stadiums years ago. More dates, large arenas. Look at Dave Matthews Band for example...he plays 20-45 sold out arena/amphitheater shows every year. His inability to play in Europe is more lack of a record label that distributes/promotes him worldwide. That is changing for him.

Again...artists are as good today, venues are better today, risk for tour in smaller venues is lower today so the desire to play stadiums is not there.

 

[2heartsboston]

I will enjoy the Stones playing.......
on my CD.....
seriously I went last 3 tours in a small venue in my humble opinion
is worth an up charge of 30-40.

But , I will not shell out this kind of Dough..on this tour!

That's why I'm glad that U2 charges 49.50 GA and Balcony
thus allowing me to see them 3X at less than ave price of 1 Stones ticket
Nite all
Waiting for our turn in Boston....

 

[kassandra]

I know this is a bit off of where this conversation has gone (pricing as opposed to stadium/baseball park/arena mix) but I find it interesting and relateable to U2's decision to do Arena's in the US that there are ZERO new football stadiums on the RS tour.

I think that a gigantic reason that U2 is not playing stadiums is the decline in the amount of good stadiums (if they were ever good in the first place) to hold a concert. If a stage was placed in the end zone in most of the new type football stadiums there would be very little straight on seating as a MAJORITY of seats in the modern stadiums are along the side lines. Look at where they are playing baseball parks...

Boston - Fenway Park (Gillette Stadium...new Football Stadium)
Detroit - Comerica Park (Lions play in a Dome...well that says enough)
Pittsburgh - PNC Park (Heinze Field...new Football Stadium)
Anaheim - Angel Stadium of Anaheim (no gigantic football stadium there..save the LA Colesium)
San Diego - Petco Park (the exception...as Qualcomm exists still but is most likely too big for the size market, yes even though they played there before...tix were easy to get. Also Petco Park is a brilliant new building located downtown right near the harbor and who wouldn't want to see a show there?)
San Fran - SBC Park (Monster Park is old, windy...and the stadium in Oakland hosts a NFL game that day)

Not precise..but pretty good pattern. You will notice these dates are all well after MLB has ended (or at least in these cities...go RED SOX!). These parks would not be available for U2 as the tour overlaps the MLB season.

In conclusion, I don't think it is the only reason one decides to play stadiums or not (as there are still many many giant college stadiums) but I think the new designs that are being seen around the NFL have signaled a decline in stadium touring in the US. Perhaps I am full of it, but thought the pattern was a bit interesting.

Consider the stadium and then the prices...............NOT WORTH THE EXPENSE! The sound is horrible in stadiums, and they are so large even the screens are difficult to enjoy. $60 at Giants stadium puts you in the rafters listening to the roar of the planes and watching the screens, listening to the delayed sound. Hershey has horrible seating for a concert. The $400 plus seats get you closer but once again the sound is horrible!