Agreed, but this is where economics and public relations crash together -- U2 could not charge true market value for tickets, they'd be skwered in the court of public opinion.
Really? They could simply auction the best seats (like Coldplay did last tour) and give a "portion" to charity like they did with Red Zone.
Do you watch Saturday Night Live? Bitch, pleeeze! A $30 bleeder is not a good sub for a $55 GA or a $95 bleacher seat. If it were, the $30 bleeders would sell out first and that's why the Row 1 seat gets $1,000 after market and the bleeder gets $40. This also explains why nobody is touting that particular logic.
I do: Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new President, bitch.
I never said a $30 bleeder is a substitute for a $55 GA, but bear in mind that about 1/2 of GAs are ultimately redeemed by fans who purchased on the secondary market for more than face value.
Your final comment smells more of conspiracy theory than fact, but I would not know -- it's a huge stretch IMO to suggest that anyone from U2 or any other big band is in bed with secondary market types. I would think they understand why it exists, but that's about all.
I never claimed U2 is in bed with the secondary market, but they certainly do nothing to prohibit and, at the very least, implicitly sanction it by having FIVE 'presales' (Horizon, Breathe, Boots, the bundle, and venue) which sold out the majotiy of seats, of which about a third end up on the secondary market. In turn, they get the sellout or very close thereto and pass the 'market' on to the brokers, who make money or lose money but in the end distribute the tickets.
With this tour, U2 depends on speculators who overbuy tickets thinking they can turn the tickets over for a profit or, at the very least, for face (or trade them). This takes a good portion of tickets off the market temporarily and creates artificial demand. Why else would anyone have purchased 4, 6, 8, or 10 $250 tickets to Chicago 2 (for example) and be willing to sell them TWO WEEKS LATER (and five months before the show) for face value (or less)?
I am not suggesting that U2 promotes the secondary market, but they definitely need it for this tour, because it's impossible to gauge market price for each venue accurately and, moreover, they could hardly have drastic price differences based on venue without jeopardizing their credibility (Imagine Giants Stadium GAs being $95 while Scott Stadium GAs are $45? Note that the market would have supported such a price disparity). They sanction it by keeping prices at a level where if the sellout isn't a creature of pure fan demand, it's a creature of 'market' demand.
If U2 wished not to sanction the secondary market, the best 10% of seats would be auctioned via ticketmaster (again, like Coldplay did) and the GAs (or even simply the ellipse GAs) would be will call day of show (similar to what Springsteen did, where you showed up day of show, got your two tickets and they placed two wristbands on you and your guest so you couldn't sell the tix).
From U2's perspective, a majority of fans will get their GAs for face. Those who don't will get them in the secondary market at a markup (e.g. NYC) or a discount (e.g., Scott Stadium and I suspect Phoenix, as was the case in 2005). But ultimately, it'll be their fans in the pit (even if there's a couple of d-bag wannabe VIPs like Alyssa Milano trolling the pit in Honolulu).