Get on Your Boots may have ruined U2

[imedi]

It's no secret that Coldplay, whilst not the best of bands, have been making much better music than U2 have this past decade. A Rush of Blood to the Head and Viva la Vida embarrass  U2's post-Pop albums.

But do they have a larger fan base than U2? Has their popularity even approached what U2 did in the 80's and 90's during their peak?

Coldplay can't even do a U.S. stadium tour at their supposed peak of their popularity while U2 is still doing some of their most successful stadium tours at the end of their third decade.

Statistically, yes. Their popularity has reached that of U2 at their peak. They have had 2 UK number one singles, which is as many as U2 had at this point. They had sold over 50million records in their first decade; U2 have sold 150million in their three decades. All five of their albums have hit number one in the UK; three of them doing so in the US. I can't speak much about that though, since I wasn't alive for U2 at their peak. Who knows, maybe more people liked them, but going by statistics Coldplay are as popular as U2 at their peak.

Also, Coldplay may not sell out stadiums in the US, but they could easily if they wanted to. They sell out multiple nights at 20,000 capacity venues. If they wanted to, instead of doing that, they could easily play 2 nights at a 50,000 or 60,000 capacity stadium.

I don't see one comment on a Coldplay song has led to all of this though.

no way are coldplay as popular as u2 were at their peak world wide.. if u are talking uk then yes they are. but thats different..in fact until i saw a piece in a newspaper that said  coldplays last album was 100k sales down on nloth at the same 10 week stage after release  i would have said that coldplay currently are as big in the usa as u2 but it seems even that is not quite the case..

[MLP Midnight]

I'm confused. Me and my Dad paid like $95 each or something for tickets where we had seats in the lower tier of Giants stadium. The view was perfect.

I think those $95 seats were gone when I tried to get tickets. I don't think I got the first presale, but one of the presales. Were you close to the stage?

Kicked myself for not doing Meadowlands and Philly, especially when I saw the set lists!

Seatwise, I was pretty close yeah.

I guess I lucked out, both in that sense and setlist wise 

[@lmighty DS]

I'm confused. Me and my Dad paid like $95 each or something for tickets where we had seats in the lower tier of Giants stadium. The view was perfect.

I think those $95 seats were gone when I tried to get tickets. I don't think I got the first presale, but one of the presales. Were you close to the stage?

Kicked myself for not doing Meadowlands and Philly, especially when I saw the set lists!

Seatwise, I was pretty close yeah.

I guess I lucked out, both in that sense and setlist wise 

i had GA to Denver 360 in May 2011 and i really wished id of had lower tier seats instead. So did the 5 ppl we went with

[Johnny Feathers]

Sorry, was someone expounding on how playing a stadium kept ticket prices down?  I paid $250 a seat for 360, and was stuck in the 300 level.  And that was an improvement on the 100 level seat I originally had.

20 years before that, I paid $32 for a 2nd row seat for Zoo TV.  I'll let you guess which show was the better value.

Absolute Rip Off.

Who knows what the cost of inflation would make that $32 ticket now? More than the Red Zone?

Tempting to think that, but it's not really the case.  Can you think of anything else that costs nearly 10 times what it did just 20 years ago?  I once saw an article online that showed the rate of inflation vs. the increase in concert ticket prices--concert prices skyrocketed above the inflation rate.  No, I think it's a case of LiveNation and TicketMaster realizing what people would be willing to pay to see acts like U2.  (And to a certain degree, it's U2 not wanting to make the financial risk they did when the did Zoo TV.)  Hey, it's capitalism at its finest--but those ticket prices don't necessarily indicate a better show.

While I can't find the article I originally saw, I've found a number of other articles discussing concert ticket prices vs. inflation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/mar/13/ticket-price-inflation-rock-n-roll

http://www.stylizedfacts.com/coruscation/2010/04/the_relationship_between_mr_ra.html

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0112/Why-Rock-And-Roll-Is-Slumping-In-The-U.S.aspx#axzz1rjyR0Slz

Key sentence from that last one:  "Concert ticket prices.....have increased FOUR TIMES THE RATE OF INFLATION since 2002."

[Sugarcube]

Sorry, was someone expounding on how playing a stadium kept ticket prices down?  I paid $250 a seat for 360, and was stuck in the 300 level.  And that was an improvement on the 100 level seat I originally had.

20 years before that, I paid $32 for a 2nd row seat for Zoo TV.  I'll let you guess which show was the better value.

Absolute Rip Off.

Who knows what the cost of inflation would make that $32 ticket now? More than the Red Zone?

Tempting to think that, but it's not really the case.  Can you think of anything else that costs nearly 10 times what it did just 20 years ago?  I once saw an article online that showed the rate of inflation vs. the increase in concert ticket prices--concert prices skyrocketed above the inflation rate.  No, I think it's a case of LiveNation and TicketMaster realizing what people are would be willing to pay to see acts like U2.  (And to a certain degree, it's U2 not wanting to make the financial risk they did when the did Zoo TV.)  Hey, it's capitalism at its finest--but those ticket prices don't necessarily indicate a better show.

Yeah, live music has become much more popular over the past 10 years or so - especially larger gigs and festivals.

The organisers of these events are making a killing from ticket sales. As are the bands - I don't think U2 are more or less expensive than anyone else particularly. They just claim the best seats are the cheapest - which is total bollocks

[Johnny Feathers]

Sorry, was someone expounding on how playing a stadium kept ticket prices down?  I paid $250 a seat for 360, and was stuck in the 300 level.  And that was an improvement on the 100 level seat I originally had.

20 years before that, I paid $32 for a 2nd row seat for Zoo TV.  I'll let you guess which show was the better value.

Absolute Rip Off.

Who knows what the cost of inflation would make that $32 ticket now? More than the Red Zone?

Tempting to think that, but it's not really the case.  Can you think of anything else that costs nearly 10 times what it did just 20 years ago?  I once saw an article online that showed the rate of inflation vs. the increase in concert ticket prices--concert prices skyrocketed above the inflation rate.  No, I think it's a case of LiveNation and TicketMaster realizing what people are would be willing to pay to see acts like U2.  (And to a certain degree, it's U2 not wanting to make the financial risk they did when the did Zoo TV.)  Hey, it's capitalism at its finest--but those ticket prices don't necessarily indicate a better show.

Yeah, live music has become much more popular over the past 10 years or so - especially larger gigs and festivals.

The organisers of these events are making a killing from ticket sales. As are the bands - I don't think U2 are more or less expensive than anyone else particularly. They just claim the best seats are the cheapest - which is total bollocks

Agreed on all points.

[Johnny Feathers]

I'll say this, too, though it might warrant a thread all its own.  Rather than charge top prices for a stadium concert, at this point I think I'd prefer them charging those top prices for smaller venues, and maybe employing a paid fan-club subscription for live concert video broadcasts throughout the tour.  The people attending get a smaller, better show, and those not lucky enough to be there in person can at least watch the show at home, for a much lower price than paying out for nosebleed seats.  Never happen, of course, but it would be nice.

[Sugarcube]

Sorry, was someone expounding on how playing a stadium kept ticket prices down?  I paid $250 a seat for 360, and was stuck in the 300 level.  And that was an improvement on the 100 level seat I originally had.

20 years before that, I paid $32 for a 2nd row seat for Zoo TV.  I'll let you guess which show was the better value.

Absolute Rip Off.

Who knows what the cost of inflation would make that $32 ticket now? More than the Red Zone?

Tempting to think that, but it's not really the case.  Can you think of anything else that costs nearly 10 times what it did just 20 years ago?  I once saw an article online that showed the rate of inflation vs. the increase in concert ticket prices--concert prices skyrocketed above the inflation rate.  No, I think it's a case of LiveNation and TicketMaster realizing what people would be willing to pay to see acts like U2.  (And to a certain degree, it's U2 not wanting to make the financial risk they did when the did Zoo TV.)  Hey, it's capitalism at its finest--but those ticket prices don't necessarily indicate a better show.

While I can't find the article I originally saw, I've found a number of other articles discussing concert ticket prices vs. inflation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/mar/13/ticket-price-inflation-rock-n-roll

http://www.stylizedfacts.com/coruscation/2010/04/the_relationship_between_mr_ra.html

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0112/Why-Rock-And-Roll-Is-Slumping-In-The-U.S.aspx#axzz1rjyR0Slz

Key sentence from that last one:  "Concert ticket prices.....have increased FOUR TIMES THE RATE OF INFLATION since 2002."

Interesting stuff - everyone's at it. No one (including U2) are doing it for the benefit of the fans. These events are scaled by very clever people.

General admission to see Springsteen at Hyde Park this year is £60. Once you factor in some crap beer and food and travel you're looking at the evening costing £100. That's a load of money to be entertained for 3 hours.

But, as the Jam said, the public gets what the public wants. No demand = no supply. I dare say the artists approach is, if people will pay the money, we'll charge the money and everyone will get rich(er).

[Johnny Feathers]

But, as the Jam said, the public gets what the public wants. No demand = no supply. I dare say the artists approach is, if people will pay the money, we'll charge the money and everyone will get rich(er).

Absolutely.  One of the articles above suggests that concert tickets were UNDERPRICED in the past.  Think about it.  The very fact that there are scalpers who can do what they do SAYS the concert tickets are underpriced.  As long as someone is willing to pay more, why wouldn't they charge it?  The hue and cry over scalpers I think is as much to do with "hey, not fair, WE should have charged more to make more money!" than any sort of altruistic bent.  It won't ever stop until you see artists charging $500 or $1000 a seat or something and they can't sell out the venue, and they LOSE MONEY.  Also, now that you can resell your ticket through Ticketmaster for as high a price you can get for it suggests to me that they've already found a solution of sorts.

[Sugarcube]

But, as the Jam said, the public gets what the public wants. No demand = no supply. I dare say the artists approach is, if people will pay the money, we'll charge the money and everyone will get rich(er).

Absolutely.  One of the articles above suggests that concert tickets were UNDERPRICED in the past.  Think about it.  The very fact that there are scalpers who can do what they do SAYS the concert tickets are underpriced.  As long as someone is willing to pay more, why wouldn't they charge it?  The hue and cry over scalpers I think is as much to do with "hey, not fair, WE should have charged more to make more money!" than any sort of altruistic bent.  It won't ever stop until you see artists charging $500 or $1000 a seat or something and they can't sell out the venue, and they LOSE MONEY.  Also, now that you can resell your ticket through Ticketmaster for as high a price you can get for it suggests to me that they've already found a solution of sorts.

Yep, the whole seatwave, viagogo so called 'fan to fan' sites totally legitimise what you're saying. Humans will generally sell something for the highest price they can. I guess the question would be, is selling concert tickets any different from selling toothpaste. Fans who sell tickets at inflated prices are no different from scalpers. Take this to its logical conclusion and the whole ticket selling process (whoever's doing it) is scalping. ie selling at a profit - the highest price someone's willing to pay for something

[Johnny Feathers]

Yep.  I guess the difference between concerts and toothpaste is that competition from other toothpaste brands forces each one to try and keep their prices low.  There's certainly some level of competition between bands, but it's not like someone would necessarily just be content to go see Coldplay or someone INSTEAD of U2, because it's cheaper.  It's art, and each act is (in theory) unique.  So the "value" of each concert is pretty subjective, once you get past the technical cost to put on the show. 

[Sugarcube]

Yep.  I guess the difference between concerts and toothpaste is that competition from other toothpaste brands forces each one to try and keep their prices low.  There's certainly some level of competition between bands, but it's not like someone would necessarily just be content to go see Coldplay or someone INSTEAD of U2, because it's cheaper.  It's art, and each act is (in theory) unique.  So the "value" of each concert is pretty subjective, once you get past the technical cost to put on the show.

True - the comparisons with toothpaste exist in that concert ticket or toothpaste, someones trying to sell you something at the highest price they think you're willing to pay. But fair point, there is no immediate competition between bands - although at this point the industry is self regulating given that big players like live nation and ticket master have such a monopoly on arena/stadium gigs.

[tigerfan41]

Maybe I'm strange, but I'd have a hard time selling a ticket for double what it's worth. If it's an artist I like and I can't go to the concert, I'd rather just sell at face value to another fan than rip them off. I'm all for making profits in other areas, but when it comes to concerts I sympathize with other fans because I've had the whole "scalpers buy all tickets so you have to pay above face value to see an artist you like" thing happen to me a lot.

[Sugarcube]

Maybe I'm strange, but I'd have a hard time selling a ticket for double what it's worth. If it's an artist I like and I can't go to the concert, I'd rather just sell at face value to another fan than rip them off. I'm all for making profits in other areas, but when it comes to concerts I sympathize with other fans because I've had the whole "scalpers buy all tickets so you have to pay above face value to see an artist you like" thing happen to me a lot.

Being nice, you're in the minority - take a look on ebay, seat wave, vivagogo etc. Friends of mine intentionally buy more tickets than they need and sell them on at a vast profit. Sometimes double, sometimes triple the face value. Springsteen tickets on seat wave start at £113 - that's what the fan charges. Seatwave will add around 1/4 on top of that.

So a ticket with a face value of £60 will cost you around £140. Over double.

It's not just scalpers that do it - it's fans too. Everyone is out to make money from it.

[tigerfan41]

Oh, I know I'm in the minority. I've seen my brother and many friends do the sell way above face value thing. It happens and like you said, people are always looking for a way to make a little (or a lot) extra cash. Scalping is an easy way of doing that.

It's why there needs to be a better solution to deter scalping. I'm not sure what that is or if it's something even feasible, but it's something I'm sure a lot of people want to see happen.