$300 for Upper Deck - What Are They Smoking?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Y'all are forgetting the REAL Canada's U2:

nickelback2.jpg

:lol:

As for the topic. I do believe that in LA, they may have made mistakes in pricing. Lots of upper level $300 seats remain and even a few $100s. In trying to price out scalpers, they have managed to price out regular folk.
 
Wow, had no idea. Weren't 198 million of those whatever album the Titanic tearjerker song was on?

About 60 million, I reckon. Back in the days of massive album sales and record companies often refusing to release CD singles (or make them worth it from a cost perspective). It is absolutely hilarious that the Titanic soundtrack sold some 30 million copies or whatever...it had a popular Adult Contemporary number and a bunch of forgettable orchestral tracks. I mean, kudos to the industry for managing to sell a single song for about $15-20 a pop.

Most of the sales of the album that included "My Heart Will Go On" were also due to the success of that one track, but Celine was already huge before that song...the album before that had quietly sold considerable millions around the world.
 
THAT is Canadian World Music/Irish Folk artist Loreena McKennitt, who like Mr. Beiber hails from Statford, Ontario (where I was humbled and honoured to spend a season performing at the Shakespeare festival and met Ms. McKennitt). She's quite the talented artist actually.

Here big hit was 1997's "The Mummer's Dance".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxTpvA-pUG0
 
When I got my tickets for London I just clicked on the most expensive seats there were, or at least I thought I did.

I ended up in block 404 which is advised against for people who are scared of heights. So I guess I got myself some crap seats for a lot of money. I probably won't be able to see anything!

And I will be a bit scared to dance incase I fall off the balcony.
 
They haven't had a hit in 10 years, and Vertigo was only a "hit" because it was in that ad. I only heard it on the radio for a couple days when it was released.

NLOTH sold poorly, and SOI was going to do worse. They knew that. They're just another old band loved by Rolling Stone and the Grammy committee.

Its true they have not had a "radio hit" in 10 years, but Vertigo was a legit hit regardless of the Apple add or not.

NLOTH was actually one of the biggest selling albums of 2009. There were only 6 albums that year that sold more worldwide.

I understand the stereotype of being some old heritage act and people have been trying to lable them as such for almost two decades now, but have failed to each and every time. There may come a time when they do fit that category, but it has not happened yet. U2 are still the most popular band on the planet.




There are many arguments you can make for U2's continued relevancy, but the number of people who downloaded this record is not one of them.

And there are contemporary artists who can and do compete with U2 in selling tickets, merchandise and records in huge numbers. Some of them don't even give their records away for free.

Well, U2's last tour grossed almost $750 million dollars just from ticket sales. How many artist do you know can compete with that, especially since there has only ever been 12 tours at this point that have reached the $300 million dollar mark which is less than half of U2's most recent completed tour. U2 fans typically buy more band merchandise than other artist at shows, and when you have 7.2 million ticket buyers, that translates into a lot of merchandise. The last album, NLOTH, was one of the 10 biggest selling albums of 2009 worldwide.

I know of no artist that has 1. A $750 million dollar tour. 2. 7.2 million ticket buyers buying tons of merchandise. 3. one of the 10 biggest selling albums of the year with their last album NLOTH.

Those a three big benchmarks.

Yes it does makes sense. If you have a 60k seat stadium, 10k @ $250 or more is less than 20% of the ticket pool. Now we're seeing practically every lower bowl seat (and some uppers) near $300, and that's not including the $600 'VIP' seats.

My point is that the 20% is probably more like 50% now, and that is more that many are willing or able to pay. Distance isn't really the gripe for some - it's affordability.

Ok, but when U2 charged 10,000 tickets at the $250 price in a 60,000 seat stadium, they did not charge that many tickets at that price because it was nearly 20% of the ticket pool. They did it because they felt they could sell 10,000 tickets in that particular market at the $250 ticket price in those particular seats.

Fast forward to 2014 and that same factor still applies. You scale things down to an 18,000 seat arena, but your still going to have 10,000 people that will pay the $250 or $280 list price like they did on the last tour. Yes, that's more than 50% of the pool of tickets, but you already know from the last tour that there are 10,000 people willing to pay those prices in a stadium. Now its an arena where its more intimate and these seats are closer. Naturally U2 are still going to be charging the top level dollar for those 10,000 ticket buyers who purchased the $250 tickets on the 360 tour. Yet, despite that they have still kept the GA tickets low priced, $65 list price compared to $55 list price on 360. The last 1/3 of the arena tickets are priced at the normal $100 and then discounted $65 and $35.

The resistance to the $250 ticket priced should have showed up on 360 but it didn't. Because it didn't that insured that we would have those large ticket price levels swamping the arena shows on this tour. It was inevitable, its what the market will allow. Also, there were lots of $250 tickets that were always available for months prior to the 360 shows. Its a top level ticket price that the majority of fans shy away from, but despite that most of them are eventually sold by show time, and so will it be with these arena shows.

If you want the cheap tickets to make up a larger fraction of the ticket pool, then you should be demanding a stadium tour rather than an arena tour. If the band moves to stadiums on this tour, you will see the number of "cheap" tickets make up a far larger fraction of the ticket pool than they are currently.
 
Hey speaking of Ford Nation, Rob Ford, and The Tragically Hip, here's a fun fact I had forgotten:

Last year I think it was Rob Ford invited the media to a lil Christmas party, bizarrely held in his mom's basement. Before eventually kicking them out for asking too many questions, he gave them the grand tour, including showing off his mom's big backyard, where he reiterated his oft-repeated claim that The Tragically Hip had played one of his barbecues when they were "first starting out". People aren't too sure whether this "show" actually took place, but at least a few people who knew Ford in his younger years have attested that his parties were a must attend based on the perennial rumour that The Hip might show up, you know, like they did that summer before lol

Now, I'm sure someone more resourceful with the ol Internet might turn up a story or even a video wherein Gord Downie rips Ford a right new asshole, I mean I couldn't find much else than a tweet by someone who said that if Downie went negative on Ford, Ford's support base would wither and die almost instantly..

Read into that what you may but it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the average Hip Fan may also be a Ford Nation follower too..yeah, that fits lmao


Sent from my ass crack
 
Well, U2's last tour grossed almost $750 million dollars just from ticket sales. How many artist do you know can compete with that, especially since there has only ever been 12 tours at this point that have reached the $300 million dollar mark which is less than half of U2's most recent completed tour. U2 fans typically buy more band merchandise than other artist at shows, and when you have 7.2 million ticket buyers, that translates into a lot of merchandise. The last album, NLOTH, was one of the 10 biggest selling albums of 2009 worldwide.

I'm not sure who you're tying to convince, and of what. Of course NLOTH was one of the top 10 records of 2009...so?

And I'm not arguing that 360 wasn't the biggest tour of all time, merely that U2 isn't alone in their ability to sell albums, tickets and merchandise.
The Stones Bigger Bang tour did almost 600 mil, I believe, and AC/DC, Roger Waters and Madonna all have had tours over 400 mil. And most of those are heritage acts.

And I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics that U2 sells more merchandise than other artists.

Again, not sure what your point is. No one here is arguing that U2 isn't one of the biggest bands around. My only point to you was that they aren't alone in their ability to generate gaudy numbers, and that the download number for their new record really isn't representative of much...except, perhaps, their (justifiable) lack of confidence on how it would sell if they actually charged for it.

Anyway, indeed you make some cogent points, and welcome to the board!
 
I'm not sure who you're tying to convince, and of what. Of course NLOTH was one of the top 10 records of 2009...so?

And I'm not arguing that 360 wasn't the biggest tour of all time, merely that U2 isn't alone in their ability to sell albums, tickets and merchandise.
The Stones Bigger Bang tour did almost 600 mil, I believe, and AC/DC, Roger Waters and Madonna all have had tours over 400 mil. And most of those are heritage acts.

And I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics that U2 sells more merchandise than other artists.

Again, not sure what your point is. No one here is arguing that U2 isn't one of the biggest bands around. My only point to you was that they aren't alone in their ability to generate gaudy numbers, and that the download number for their new record really isn't representative of much...except, perhaps, their (justifiable) lack of confidence on how it would sell if they actually charged for it.

Anyway, indeed you make some cogent points, and welcome to the board!

Yes NLOTH was one of the 10 biggest sellers of 2009 worldwide. When was the last time the Rolling Stones could say the same thing? Probably not since 1981. Their last studio album did not even make the top 40 globally for 2005. Madonna's MDNA album did not crack the top 20 in 2012.

AC/DC's last album was a big hit, but their tour was $300 million below that of 360. What I'm saying is that no one is matching U2 in each of these areas of selling albums, tickets, and artist merchandise.

I don't have the actual merchandise numbers but simply know that most artist merchandise is sold at concerts. U2 had 7.2 million ticket buyers on the last tour and U2 fans have been known since 1985 to buy merchandise at rates that are usually higher than most other artist according to Billboard Magazine. Put those two factors together, 7.2 million ticket buyers and the fact that U2 fans typically buy more t-shirts and stuff than other artist fans, and that round total for merchandise sales is going to be higher automatically, primarily because you have a whopping 7.2 million fans going to these concerts when most other artist can't generate 1/3 of that.

Yes, Roger Waters had a huge tour the last time he went out based on his former band Pink Floyd's Wall Album. But Roger Waters has never had one of his solo albums be one of the top 10 sellers of the year. Plus despite the success of the tour, it still finished FAR behind U2's, despite the fact that he played twice as many shows.
 
When I got my tickets for London I just clicked on the most expensive seats there were, or at least I thought I did.

I ended up in block 404 which is advised against for people who are scared of heights. So I guess I got myself some crap seats for a lot of money. I probably won't be able to see anything!

And I will be a bit scared to dance incase I fall off the balcony.

If you go to the customer help desk up on level 4 (near block 417 I think) and explain the fear of heights they will often find something for you in the 100 levels - maybe even floor if you are lucky. It is more hit & miss these days though, during the Bon Jovi run a few year back people figured out it was cheap way to blag a top priced ticket. Also depends on what is available ticket-wise and might mean missing some of the opening track to move - they often get a supply as the band starts (unused guest tickets and the like).
 
Yes NLOTH was one of the 10 biggest sellers of 2009 worldwide. When was the last time the Rolling Stones could say the same thing? Probably not since 1981. Their last studio album did not even make the top 40 globally for 2005. Madonna's MDNA album did not crack the top 20 in 2012.

AC/DC's last album was a big hit, but their tour was $300 million below that of 360. What I'm saying is that no one is matching U2 in each of these areas of selling albums, tickets, and artist merchandise.

I don't have the actual merchandise numbers but simply know that most artist merchandise is sold at concerts. U2 had 7.2 million ticket buyers on the last tour and U2 fans have been known since 1985 to buy merchandise at rates that are usually higher than most other artist according to Billboard Magazine. Put those two factors together, 7.2 million ticket buyers and the fact that U2 fans typically buy more t-shirts and stuff than other artist fans, and that round total for merchandise sales is going to be higher automatically, primarily because you have a whopping 7.2 million fans going to these concerts when most other artist can't generate 1/3 of that.

Yes, Roger Waters had a huge tour the last time he went out based on his former band Pink Floyd's Wall Album. But Roger Waters has never had one of his solo albums be one of the top 10 sellers of the year. Plus despite the success of the tour, it still finished FAR behind U2's, despite the fact that he played twice as many shows.

OK man, I hear you. I just don't get the need by some fans to make the case for U2's relevance by dissing what other (really successful) artists are doing. It's all relative.

I mean, really, if we want to play that game, there's a lot of artists that are selling tons more records than U2...records that people are willing to pay for...that make U2 look irrelevant by comparison. Not to mention that U2 might as well not exist (at least in a good way) when it comes to the cultural zeitgeist, social media and being truly relevant on the contemporary music scene. There's more to relevancy than having a big tour. You can't make that argument any more than you can make the argument for Roger Waters or the Rolling Stones or AC/DC...look how big their tours are, but no one would call them musical relevant.
 
OK man, I hear you. I just don't get the need by some fans to make the case for U2's relevance by dissing what other (really successful) artists are doing. It's all relative.

I mean, really, if we want to play that game, there's a lot of artists that are selling tons more records than U2...records that people are willing to pay for...that make U2 look irrelevant by comparison. Not to mention that U2 might as well not exist (at least in a good way) when it comes to the cultural zeitgeist, social media and being truly relevant on the contemporary music scene. There's more to relevancy than having a big tour. You can't make that argument any more than you can make the argument for Roger Waters or the Rolling Stones or AC/DC...look how big their tours are, but no one would call them musical relevant.

Look, U2 could have released the album in the normal way like last time, and it would likely be one of the top selling albums this year. Instead, they did something unique and gave it away to the public for free. Its an experiment and it shouldn't count against them.

I tried to explain to you that U2 had more than just a big tour. Their last album was big and their merchandise sales were big as well. Roger Waters, The Rolling Stones, and Madonna did not have big albums to go with their big tours. U2 did.

As for AC/DC, their last album was the 2nd biggest selling album of 2008. I'd say that is pretty relevant.

I don't see how being big on social media or the tabloids would be a form of relevance. U2 like other music artist sell albums, tickets, and merchandise. Looking at those things is the only objective way to see if an artist is having a significant impact or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom