Author Topic: Guy Oseary  (Read 1918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MadRob360

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 287
  • Jealousy Is A Disease
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2018, 02:59:10 PM »
I met guy at Twickenham last year - he was very engaging and i mentioned to him about fans problems especially in the U.S. He talked highly of How U2's fanbase is unlike any other. I think he's genuine. But i think we were spoilt having paul as their manager for so long, you're bound to 'get it' more if you've been there from the start

Offline McSwilly

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 226
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2018, 08:30:51 PM »
Paul McGuinness had ethics and saw his job to let the band be creative and good to the fans and he would take care of the business side. This new guy...not so much.

Online laoghaire

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,271
  • I love the peaceful life.
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2018, 09:41:09 PM »
Is there any truth at all too U2's fanbase being different or is that just blowing smoke up our ar**s?

Maybe it's different from Madonna's <snicker>

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 889
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2018, 01:17:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.

Offline 73October

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,291
  • Joy is an act of defiance
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2018, 08:55:13 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.

This is where I'm concerned that U2 are losing fans....not only are people that would have considered themselves as committed/core fans sitting out the tour....they are not listening to the album, having dismissed it several months ago (after trying to listen to it and like it).
Is there a big section of fans out there wanting them to do another ATYCLB??  Red Flag Day seems to have struck a raw nerve pretty much from the start, although The Blackout did also until people heard RFD. Other tracks have mixed reactions across the fanbase, although Love Is Bigger appears to be a slow grower.
Back to touring - there are a whole load of ex-core fans that need convincing a U2 show is something they should be spending their money on.  And no-one is filling that gap just yet.

Offline 73October

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,291
  • Joy is an act of defiance
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2018, 08:58:27 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is there any truth at all too U2's fanbase being different or is that just blowing smoke up our ar**s?

Maybe it's different from Madonna's <snicker>

We're intelligent and debate the meaning of the music.....*sneaks away quietly*Ö!

Actually I tried to get to look at some of her fan forums just now and many are so secretive - there's no open access.  The one forum I have managed to get open access to suggests the closed ones might be one helluva bitchy cat fight.  Either than or the subject content has to be wrapped in foil and placed on the top shelf  :)

There are some debates as to M's relevancy and fitness, but for someone of a similar age and time in the spotlight as U2, that's inevitable.

So Guy Oseary probably reads these forums and thinks we are polite and take tea with our pinky finger pointing outwards!
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 09:17:27 AM by 73October »

Offline Tortuga

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 404
Guy Oseary
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2018, 09:42:23 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying when you say:

he E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular.

This tour had some smaller stops they hadnít been to for many years.  They hadnít played Tulsa since War.  I am sure there were casual fans that went to the Tulsa show because it was the first show they could go to without traveling in 35 years.  Omaha hadnít been played since 2005.  The fans sitting at the shows?  Those are casual fans, and as you have pointed out, they are there.

Casual fans donít care about the new album.  They assume a U2 show will include the hits plus 3 or 4 new songs during which they can go to the bathroom.  They arenít listening to the new album, evaluating it, and then deciding whether or not to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 09:46:18 AM by Tortuga »

Online laoghaire

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,271
  • I love the peaceful life.
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2018, 09:47:02 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is there any truth at all too U2's fanbase being different or is that just blowing smoke up our ar**s?

Maybe it's different from Madonna's <snicker>

We're intelligent and debate the meaning of the music.....*sneaks away quietly*Ö!

Actually I tried to get to look at some of her fan forums just now and many are so secretive - there's no open access.  The one forum I have managed to get open access to suggests the closed ones might be one helluva bitchy cat fight.  Either than or the subject content has to be wrapped in foil and placed on the top shelf  :)

There are some debates as to M's relevancy and fitness, but for someone of a similar age and time in the spotlight as U2, that's inevitable.

So Guy Oseary probably reads these forums and thinks we are polite and take tea with our pinky finger pointing outwards!

Guy Oseary reads these forums and sees us slamming him. (Inevitable. The world's greatest rock band manager still has grousing fans.)

He doesn't think we're polite. We're demanding, ungrateful whiners.

We are also not unique among fandoms. All fans discuss meaning. Floyd fans, Lamar fans, Star Wars fans, anime fans.

Just maybe not so much Madonna fans. <snicker>
(Full disclosure: I own several Madonna albums.)

Online laoghaire

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,271
  • I love the peaceful life.
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2018, 09:56:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying when you say:

he E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular.

This tour had some smaller stops they hadnít been to for many years.  They hadnít played Tulsa since War.  I am sure there were casual fans that went to the Tulsa show because it was the first show they could go to without traveling in 35 years.  Omaha hadnít been played since 2005.  The fans sitting at the shows?  Those are casual fans, and as you have pointed out, they are there.

Casual fans donít care about the new album.  They assume a U2 show will include the hits plus 3 or 4 new songs during which they can go to the bathroom.  They arenít listening to the new album, evaluating it, and then deciding whether or not to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's true. Back when I used to go to concerts, I didn't necessarily say "so-and-so's new album is fantastic, let's go." It was more, "so-and-so's in town, let's go." Obviously I would have been a casual fan already or I wouldn't have wanted to go at all. But when I went to see Elton John or Jethro Tull, I honestly don't even know (to this day) if they were touring a new album or not. I knew the Stones had a new album when I saw them, but I never bought it. And that wasn't even a diss; I just was a casual fan, enjoyed seeing them play, didn't really feel the need to acquire the new album. I was happy with my experience, still remember Mick and Keith and Ron and their blow-up dolls all these years later.

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 889
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2018, 02:21:20 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying when you say:

he E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular.

This tour had some smaller stops they hadnít been to for many years.  They hadnít played Tulsa since War.  I am sure there were casual fans that went to the Tulsa show because it was the first show they could go to without traveling in 35 years.  Omaha hadnít been played since 2005.  The fans sitting at the shows?  Those are casual fans, and as you have pointed out, they are there.

Casual fans donít care about the new album.  They assume a U2 show will include the hits plus 3 or 4 new songs during which they can go to the bathroom.  They arenít listening to the new album, evaluating it, and then deciding whether or not to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My definition of casual fans vs dedicated fans comes from and is essentially based on POP/POPMART performance in the United States vs Achtung Baby/ZOO TV performance in the United States.  The POP album only sold 1.3 million copies in its first two years compared to over 5 million for Achtung Baby. In most markets U2 played, demand to see U2 LIVE was roughly down by 50% on POPMART compared to ZOO TV. In some markets more than 50%. That's why the EDGE referred to the 17,000 fans at the POPMART show in Tampa Florida as DIE HARDS! What this tells you is that U2's die hard dedicated fan base can sellout or fill an arena tour for the band. But if the band want to do the stadiums, they need the casual fans to come out. With the E&I tour being booked in arenas, and demand showing that it was a good idea and that stadiums would have looked half empty in many markets, that tells you this is show where primarily die hard dedicated fans show up to. Just like on POPMART. Demand to see the band live in the United States is about what it was on the POPMART tour. I can go into the boxoffice results for several cities to explain that further if needed.


The casual fan comes out only after being pushed into going by media, other friends etc or because they like the new album and music. The media, friends chatter increases the more popular the band is with new material. Without that, the casual fan stays home, like he did on POPMART. Thats the definition of a casual fan to me. The casual fans come out when the band is doing record level of business and their the reason for that record level business. When the band is less popular, they stay home. Thats the way it goes.


Lets take Denver as an example. On the I&E tour in 2015, 28,000 people showed up for two U2 shows in an arena in Denver. But on the 360 tour in 2011, there were 79,000 people at the stadium show. All the casual fans in Colorado came out for the 360 show in 2011. But they stayed home for the I&E tour shows in 2015 when only 28,000 people came. The 360 tour was die hards and casuals. The I&E tour in 2015 was die hards without the casuals, just like POPMART. By the way, guess how many people were at the POPMART Denver show? Just a little over 28,000. Hmmmm, see the pattern there. Just like POPMART, on the I&E tour, on the die hards came out.


Now, there will of course be small exceptions to these definitions. Every show probably has a few people that are not even what you would call a fan in any sense of the word. But this more an overall general observation. My definition of a die hard fan is a lot looser than your definition. My definition of a casual fan is a bit more strict.


I'm not including the stand up/sit down issue with this, because it was NEVER and issue on a U2 tour before this one. I'm not talking about individuals, but whole sections of fans sitting down. Thats a new one and the reason for that has yet to be fully explained. I'm starting to thing it is due to AGE, and the average American being overweight and out of shape. The problem of weight gain and being out of shape only gets worse as you age and one does nothing about it, which is typical for the average american. So naturally, the U2 fanbase is now older and heavier which it appears may make standing more difficult or less desirable now.


Although the band are older than most of their fans, they look or seem decades younger now compared to their fans. The band are generally fit and energetic on stage. You can see this contrast in some videos on youtube. Front row behind the stage looks like average America, with 2/3s overweight or obese, while that band look like young athletes by comparison.

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 889
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2018, 02:32:33 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying when you say:

he E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular.

This tour had some smaller stops they hadnít been to for many years.  They hadnít played Tulsa since War.  I am sure there were casual fans that went to the Tulsa show because it was the first show they could go to without traveling in 35 years.  Omaha hadnít been played since 2005.  The fans sitting at the shows?  Those are casual fans, and as you have pointed out, they are there.

Casual fans donít care about the new album.  They assume a U2 show will include the hits plus 3 or 4 new songs during which they can go to the bathroom.  They arenít listening to the new album, evaluating it, and then deciding whether or not to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's true. Back when I used to go to concerts, I didn't necessarily say "so-and-so's new album is fantastic, let's go." It was more, "so-and-so's in town, let's go." Obviously I would have been a casual fan already or I wouldn't have wanted to go at all. But when I went to see Elton John or Jethro Tull, I honestly don't even know (to this day) if they were touring a new album or not. I knew the Stones had a new album when I saw them, but I never bought it. And that wasn't even a diss; I just was a casual fan, enjoyed seeing them play, didn't really feel the need to acquire the new album. I was happy with my experience, still remember Mick and Keith and Ron and their blow-up dolls all these years later.

There are individuals like that at every show. I'm talking about a very broad analysis of who goes to certain tours and not others when it comes to U2. There is a pattern that has developed as U2 became a big band. When the new music is popular, the band is playing sellout shows in stadiums. When its not, they get the huge 50% cut in demand seen on POPMART. The casuals come out when the new music is popular, they generally stay home when its not as seen on POPMART and now the I&E and E&I tours. Die Hards stick with the band through thick and thin. The casuals come out when they like the new music or the band is somehow generating a lot of positive media. Absent things like that, the casuals stay home.

Offline Tortuga

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 404
Guy Oseary
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2018, 06:17:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying when you say:

he E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular.

This tour had some smaller stops they hadnít been to for many years.  They hadnít played Tulsa since War.  I am sure there were casual fans that went to the Tulsa show because it was the first show they could go to without traveling in 35 years.  Omaha hadnít been played since 2005.  The fans sitting at the shows?  Those are casual fans, and as you have pointed out, they are there.

Casual fans donít care about the new album.  They assume a U2 show will include the hits plus 3 or 4 new songs during which they can go to the bathroom.  They arenít listening to the new album, evaluating it, and then deciding whether or not to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's true. Back when I used to go to concerts, I didn't necessarily say "so-and-so's new album is fantastic, let's go." It was more, "so-and-so's in town, let's go." Obviously I would have been a casual fan already or I wouldn't have wanted to go at all. But when I went to see Elton John or Jethro Tull, I honestly don't even know (to this day) if they were touring a new album or not. I knew the Stones had a new album when I saw them, but I never bought it. And that wasn't even a diss; I just was a casual fan, enjoyed seeing them play, didn't really feel the need to acquire the new album. I was happy with my experience, still remember Mick and Keith and Ron and their blow-up dolls all these years later.

There are individuals like that at every show. I'm talking about a very broad analysis of who goes to certain tours and not others when it comes to U2. There is a pattern that has developed as U2 became a big band. When the new music is popular, the band is playing sellout shows in stadiums. When its not, they get the huge 50% cut in demand seen on POPMART. The casuals come out when the new music is popular, they generally stay home when its not as seen on POPMART and now the I&E and E&I tours. Die Hards stick with the band through thick and thin. The casuals come out when they like the new music or the band is somehow generating a lot of positive media. Absent things like that, the casuals stay home.


You enjoy analyzing things which is cool.  Its what I do for a living.  But IMHO, you get one comparison factor in your mind, like the Popmart thing and you base your whole analysis on that one thing, leaving out all the other factors.  This leads you to have to explain things like large areas of people sitting as the result of everyone suddenly growing too old and fat to standup in the space of literally one year since the JT tour.

I donít have the interest level in this topic to analyze why your popmart analogy doesnít make sense.  TBH, I had to force myself to read all that long post.  But I know for a fact that many tickets were sold before the album even came out and I know a lot of people who went that have no clue what U2 has been up to lately.  ďDie-hardĒ fans are so rare that the only way to meet one is at some gathering or on a forum like this.   I donít see how there could be enough to even half-fill an arena in Omaha or Tulsa.

U2 are a legacy act now.  They werenít yet in 1997.  Maybe that has something to do with it.  In ant case, Iím afraid Iíll have to do the crummy thing of telling you that you havenít convinced me but Iím losing interest in the discussion.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 08:08:41 AM by Tortuga »

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 889
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2018, 08:17:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying when you say:

he E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular.

This tour had some smaller stops they hadnít been to for many years.  They hadnít played Tulsa since War.  I am sure there were casual fans that went to the Tulsa show because it was the first show they could go to without traveling in 35 years.  Omaha hadnít been played since 2005.  The fans sitting at the shows?  Those are casual fans, and as you have pointed out, they are there.

Casual fans donít care about the new album.  They assume a U2 show will include the hits plus 3 or 4 new songs during which they can go to the bathroom.  They arenít listening to the new album, evaluating it, and then deciding whether or not to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's true. Back when I used to go to concerts, I didn't necessarily say "so-and-so's new album is fantastic, let's go." It was more, "so-and-so's in town, let's go." Obviously I would have been a casual fan already or I wouldn't have wanted to go at all. But when I went to see Elton John or Jethro Tull, I honestly don't even know (to this day) if they were touring a new album or not. I knew the Stones had a new album when I saw them, but I never bought it. And that wasn't even a diss; I just was a casual fan, enjoyed seeing them play, didn't really feel the need to acquire the new album. I was happy with my experience, still remember Mick and Keith and Ron and their blow-up dolls all these years later.

There are individuals like that at every show. I'm talking about a very broad analysis of who goes to certain tours and not others when it comes to U2. There is a pattern that has developed as U2 became a big band. When the new music is popular, the band is playing sellout shows in stadiums. When its not, they get the huge 50% cut in demand seen on POPMART. The casuals come out when the new music is popular, they generally stay home when its not as seen on POPMART and now the I&E and E&I tours. Die Hards stick with the band through thick and thin. The casuals come out when they like the new music or the band is somehow generating a lot of positive media. Absent things like that, the casuals stay home.


You enjoy analyzing things which is cool.  Its what I do for a living.  But IMHO, you get one comparison factor in your mind, like the Popmart thing and you base your whole analysis on that one thing, leaving out all the other factors.  This leads you to have to explain things like large areas of people sitting as the result of everyone suddenly growing too old and fat to standup in the space of literally one year since the JT tour.

I donít have the interest level in this topic to analyze why your popmart analogy doesnít make sense.  TBH, I had to force myself to read all that long post.  But I know for a fact that many tickets were sold before the album even came out and I know a lot of people who went that have no clue what U2 has been up to lately.  ďDie-hardĒ fans are so rare that the only way to meet one is at some gathering or on a forum like this.   I donít see how there could be enough to even half-fill an arena in Omaha or Tulsa.

U2 are a legacy act now.  They werenít yet in 1997.  So Iím afraid Iíll have to do the crummy thing of telling you that you havenít convinced me but Iím losing interest in the discussion.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the box office results from POPMART and other tours are solid factual information that cannot be disputed. So that is an excellent place to start. Start with something factual. So yes, its a good place to base analysis on, something solid. Other factors you mention are not necessarily facts or something as concrete as actual boxoffice results. I have every Boxscore for every U2 concert from POPMART tour all the way through the current tour.

I don't have a good explanation for people suddenly sitting down on this current tour. I did not see the I&E tour and although I don't remember anyone sitting down on the Joshua Tree tour, I was on the floor and did not get as good a look at the crowd in the upper levels of a massive stadium. Perhaps the "sit down thing" started as early as I&E tour in 2015. Either way, I was just taking a stab at explaining that. I don't think someone sitting down by itself is proof of a casual fan.

As for the definition of a DIE HARD fan, its nearly everyone that was willing to buy a ticket to the POPMART tour. The Edge even stated this. The casual fans are the ones that do not go to every tour. So:


Die Hard fan: sees the band on every tour

Casual Fan: does not see the band on every tour


           Those are the definitions that I use and that the band has used in the past.


U2 have been considered legends or a legacy act since just after the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987. Take VH1 and their Behind The Music series as well as their Legends series. Same programs essentially, but only a few artist were labled as LEGENDS. U2 were one of those artist along with the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin and a few others. They were labled that back in 1998 when the show was first started. U2 Legends program on VH1 was released in the fall of 1998.

Anyways, I don't think whether they are or are not a Legacy act has anything really to do with the discussion. All artist have their die hard fans and casual fans. Its clear from U2 Boxcore concert history that when the casual fans come out, the band does record breaking business like on ZOO TV Tour, Vertigo Tour, and the 360 tour. When the casual fans do not come out like on POPMART tour, I&E tour, E&I tour, then attendance numbers go way down.

ZOO TV Tour - October 21, 1992 - Denver Colorado - Mile High Stadium - Attendance: 54,450 (casual fans attend the show)

Popmart Tour - May 1, 1997 - Denver Colorado - Mile High Stadium - Attendance: 28,540 (casual fans stay home)

360 Tour - May 21, 2011 - Denver Colorado -  Invesco Field - Attendance: 77,918 (casual fans attend the show)

Innocence And Experience Tour - June 6-7, 2015 - Denver Colorado - Pepsi Center - Attendance: 28,141 (casual fans stay home)


See the pattern? Its pretty obvious. The people who go to see every tour, The Die Hard's, rescue the band on the less popular tours. The casuals fans, those that don't go to every tour, cause the band to have record breaking business when they come out.

Offline Tortuga

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 404
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2018, 10:03:45 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying when you say:

he E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular.

This tour had some smaller stops they hadnít been to for many years.  They hadnít played Tulsa since War.  I am sure there were casual fans that went to the Tulsa show because it was the first show they could go to without traveling in 35 years.  Omaha hadnít been played since 2005.  The fans sitting at the shows?  Those are casual fans, and as you have pointed out, they are there.

Casual fans donít care about the new album.  They assume a U2 show will include the hits plus 3 or 4 new songs during which they can go to the bathroom.  They arenít listening to the new album, evaluating it, and then deciding whether or not to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's true. Back when I used to go to concerts, I didn't necessarily say "so-and-so's new album is fantastic, let's go." It was more, "so-and-so's in town, let's go." Obviously I would have been a casual fan already or I wouldn't have wanted to go at all. But when I went to see Elton John or Jethro Tull, I honestly don't even know (to this day) if they were touring a new album or not. I knew the Stones had a new album when I saw them, but I never bought it. And that wasn't even a diss; I just was a casual fan, enjoyed seeing them play, didn't really feel the need to acquire the new album. I was happy with my experience, still remember Mick and Keith and Ron and their blow-up dolls all these years later.

There are individuals like that at every show. I'm talking about a very broad analysis of who goes to certain tours and not others when it comes to U2. There is a pattern that has developed as U2 became a big band. When the new music is popular, the band is playing sellout shows in stadiums. When its not, they get the huge 50% cut in demand seen on POPMART. The casuals come out when the new music is popular, they generally stay home when its not as seen on POPMART and now the I&E and E&I tours. Die Hards stick with the band through thick and thin. The casuals come out when they like the new music or the band is somehow generating a lot of positive media. Absent things like that, the casuals stay home.


You enjoy analyzing things which is cool.  Its what I do for a living.  But IMHO, you get one comparison factor in your mind, like the Popmart thing and you base your whole analysis on that one thing, leaving out all the other factors.  This leads you to have to explain things like large areas of people sitting as the result of everyone suddenly growing too old and fat to standup in the space of literally one year since the JT tour.

I donít have the interest level in this topic to analyze why your popmart analogy doesnít make sense.  TBH, I had to force myself to read all that long post.  But I know for a fact that many tickets were sold before the album even came out and I know a lot of people who went that have no clue what U2 has been up to lately.  ďDie-hardĒ fans are so rare that the only way to meet one is at some gathering or on a forum like this.   I donít see how there could be enough to even half-fill an arena in Omaha or Tulsa.

U2 are a legacy act now.  They werenít yet in 1997.  So Iím afraid Iíll have to do the crummy thing of telling you that you havenít convinced me but Iím losing interest in the discussion.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the box office results from POPMART and other tours are solid factual information that cannot be disputed. So that is an excellent place to start. Start with something factual. So yes, its a good place to base analysis on, something solid. Other factors you mention are not necessarily facts or something as concrete as actual boxoffice results. I have every Boxscore for every U2 concert from POPMART tour all the way through the current tour.

I don't have a good explanation for people suddenly sitting down on this current tour. I did not see the I&E tour and although I don't remember anyone sitting down on the Joshua Tree tour, I was on the floor and did not get as good a look at the crowd in the upper levels of a massive stadium. Perhaps the "sit down thing" started as early as I&E tour in 2015. Either way, I was just taking a stab at explaining that. I don't think someone sitting down by itself is proof of a casual fan.

As for the definition of a DIE HARD fan, its nearly everyone that was willing to buy a ticket to the POPMART tour. The Edge even stated this. The casual fans are the ones that do not go to every tour. So:


Die Hard fan: sees the band on every tour

Casual Fan: does not see the band on every tour


           Those are the definitions that I use and that the band has used in the past.


U2 have been considered legends or a legacy act since just after the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987. Take VH1 and their Behind The Music series as well as their Legends series. Same programs essentially, but only a few artist were labled as LEGENDS. U2 were one of those artist along with the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin and a few others. They were labled that back in 1998 when the show was first started. U2 Legends program on VH1 was released in the fall of 1998.

Anyways, I don't think whether they are or are not a Legacy act has anything really to do with the discussion. All artist have their die hard fans and casual fans. Its clear from U2 Boxcore concert history that when the casual fans come out, the band does record breaking business like on ZOO TV Tour, Vertigo Tour, and the 360 tour. When the casual fans do not come out like on POPMART tour, I&E tour, E&I tour, then attendance numbers go way down.

ZOO TV Tour - October 21, 1992 - Denver Colorado - Mile High Stadium - Attendance: 54,450 (casual fans attend the show)

Popmart Tour - May 1, 1997 - Denver Colorado - Mile High Stadium - Attendance: 28,540 (casual fans stay home)

360 Tour - May 21, 2011 - Denver Colorado -  Invesco Field - Attendance: 77,918 (casual fans attend the show)

Innocence And Experience Tour - June 6-7, 2015 - Denver Colorado - Pepsi Center - Attendance: 28,141 (casual fans stay home)


See the pattern? Its pretty obvious. The people who go to see every tour, The Die Hard's, rescue the band on the less popular tours. The casuals fans, those that don't go to every tour, cause the band to have record breaking business when they come out.

I appreciate all your effort but unfortunately Iím just bored with this topic.  Iím sure there will be another we can engage on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline achtungx

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 521
  • Lillywhite Called Me a Naughty British Slang Word
Re: Guy Oseary
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2018, 11:32:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
since he came on board the ticket prices have become too over priced..............haven't missed a concert since 1987 and didn't attend the last one because the prices are just too high to listen to mainly new material that is sub par IMO

That's not fair when there are tickets priced at $40, $76, and $106 dollars. There are ticket prices for every budget on this tour. You can't judge prices just by the ones that are most expensive.

I agree. I donít think the ticket prices are at all out of line for an act like U2, compared to other artists.  I do find it hard to believe Coldplay is the only artist that can beat $400MM.  Surely Taylor Swift beat that for the tour alone.

I also think the EI setlist decision could have a long-term detrimental effect on future ticket sales to casual fans, which are the majority of ticket buyers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, realize I'm talking about a non-nostalgia tour, non-reunion tour. A tour for a new album of music. Coldplay are the only band or artist that are still active that has done that recently and could possibly do it again. Taylor Swift has never grossed 400 million on tour. She'll come close on the current tour. Her problem is that 80% of her fanbase is in the United States and its very difficult to get to $400 million, let alone the $700+ plus million U2 did on 360, when most of your fans are in the United States.

As for casual U2 fans, most of them sat out the recent tours for the band. Last time you had a lot of casuals at a U2 show was on the 360 tour.


Hmmm... I remember reading projections that it would top $400MM for the tour alone.  Then you have to add album sales.  But, I donít track music sales so you would probably know.

Well, I donít know how you define ďcasualsĒ, let alone know what percentage of them are at a show, but I felt like a lot of the people at the show I attended did not know the new songs, which would make them casual in my book.  Most of the people I know who went to the show are definitely casual.  I think if you reduced the audience to people who were not disappointed with the EI setlist, it would be a small audience.  Any band thatís been as popular for as long as U2, people are going to expect to hear the big songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concert grosses are compiled strictly from ticket sales and ticket sales only. U2 has the highest grossing tour of all time with the 360 tour at $736 million gross. But all of that comes from just ticket sales. Merchandise and album sales or other things are not included.

Taylor Swift so far is averaging about $7 million gross per show, but she is only doing 53 shows. She will fall just shy of the $400 million mark. Not bad though for only having a strong following in 7 countries.

U2 played songs from all their albums, except 3, and many of them were big songs, on the current tour. Casual fans are the ones that skip the tours and albums that are not mega popular. The Vertigo Tour and 360 tour were massive tours playing to many of U2's largest audiences ever. The casual fans came out for those tours. The E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular. Sadly, this is the first time that even what would be regarded as dedicated fans did not listen to or buy the album.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying when you say:

he E&I tour is a tour that only dedicated fans would go to since it is based around a new album that is not widely popular.

This tour had some smaller stops they hadnít been to for many years.  They hadnít played Tulsa since War.  I am sure there were casual fans that went to the Tulsa show because it was the first show they could go to without traveling in 35 years.  Omaha hadnít been played since 2005.  The fans sitting at the shows?  Those are casual fans, and as you have pointed out, they are there.

Casual fans donít care about the new album.  They assume a U2 show will include the hits plus 3 or 4 new songs during which they can go to the bathroom.  They arenít listening to the new album, evaluating it, and then deciding whether or not to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's true. Back when I used to go to concerts, I didn't necessarily say "so-and-so's new album is fantastic, let's go." It was more, "so-and-so's in town, let's go." Obviously I would have been a casual fan already or I wouldn't have wanted to go at all. But when I went to see Elton John or Jethro Tull, I honestly don't even know (to this day) if they were touring a new album or not. I knew the Stones had a new album when I saw them, but I never bought it. And that wasn't even a diss; I just was a casual fan, enjoyed seeing them play, didn't really feel the need to acquire the new album. I was happy with my experience, still remember Mick and Keith and Ron and their blow-up dolls all these years later.

There are individuals like that at every show. I'm talking about a very broad analysis of who goes to certain tours and not others when it comes to U2. There is a pattern that has developed as U2 became a big band. When the new music is popular, the band is playing sellout shows in stadiums. When its not, they get the huge 50% cut in demand seen on POPMART. The casuals come out when the new music is popular, they generally stay home when its not as seen on POPMART and now the I&E and E&I tours. Die Hards stick with the band through thick and thin. The casuals come out when they like the new music or the band is somehow generating a lot of positive media. Absent things like that, the casuals stay home.


You enjoy analyzing things which is cool.  Its what I do for a living.  But IMHO, you get one comparison factor in your mind, like the Popmart thing and you base your whole analysis on that one thing, leaving out all the other factors.  This leads you to have to explain things like large areas of people sitting as the result of everyone suddenly growing too old and fat to standup in the space of literally one year since the JT tour.

I donít have the interest level in this topic to analyze why your popmart analogy doesnít make sense.  TBH, I had to force myself to read all that long post.  But I know for a fact that many tickets were sold before the album even came out and I know a lot of people who went that have no clue what U2 has been up to lately.  ďDie-hardĒ fans are so rare that the only way to meet one is at some gathering or on a forum like this.   I donít see how there could be enough to even half-fill an arena in Omaha or Tulsa.

U2 are a legacy act now.  They werenít yet in 1997.  So Iím afraid Iíll have to do the crummy thing of telling you that you havenít convinced me but Iím losing interest in the discussion.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the box office results from POPMART and other tours are solid factual information that cannot be disputed. So that is an excellent place to start. Start with something factual. So yes, its a good place to base analysis on, something solid. Other factors you mention are not necessarily facts or something as concrete as actual boxoffice results. I have every Boxscore for every U2 concert from POPMART tour all the way through the current tour.

I don't have a good explanation for people suddenly sitting down on this current tour. I did not see the I&E tour and although I don't remember anyone sitting down on the Joshua Tree tour, I was on the floor and did not get as good a look at the crowd in the upper levels of a massive stadium. Perhaps the "sit down thing" started as early as I&E tour in 2015. Either way, I was just taking a stab at explaining that. I don't think someone sitting down by itself is proof of a casual fan.

As for the definition of a DIE HARD fan, its nearly everyone that was willing to buy a ticket to the POPMART tour. The Edge even stated this. The casual fans are the ones that do not go to every tour. So:


Die Hard fan: sees the band on every tour

Casual Fan: does not see the band on every tour


           Those are the definitions that I use and that the band has used in the past.


U2 have been considered legends or a legacy act since just after the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987. Take VH1 and their Behind The Music series as well as their Legends series. Same programs essentially, but only a few artist were labled as LEGENDS. U2 were one of those artist along with the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin and a few others. They were labled that back in 1998 when the show was first started. U2 Legends program on VH1 was released in the fall of 1998.

Anyways, I don't think whether they are or are not a Legacy act has anything really to do with the discussion. All artist have their die hard fans and casual fans. Its clear from U2 Boxcore concert history that when the casual fans come out, the band does record breaking business like on ZOO TV Tour, Vertigo Tour, and the 360 tour. When the casual fans do not come out like on POPMART tour, I&E tour, E&I tour, then attendance numbers go way down.

ZOO TV Tour - October 21, 1992 - Denver Colorado - Mile High Stadium - Attendance: 54,450 (casual fans attend the show)

Popmart Tour - May 1, 1997 - Denver Colorado - Mile High Stadium - Attendance: 28,540 (casual fans stay home)

360 Tour - May 21, 2011 - Denver Colorado -  Invesco Field - Attendance: 77,918 (casual fans attend the show)

Innocence And Experience Tour - June 6-7, 2015 - Denver Colorado - Pepsi Center - Attendance: 28,141 (casual fans stay home)


See the pattern? Its pretty obvious. The people who go to see every tour, The Die Hard's, rescue the band on the less popular tours. The casuals fans, those that don't go to every tour, cause the band to have record breaking business when they come out.

One important thing that is keeping the casual fan away is ticket price in the US.
Zoo TV: average ticket price was about $30 - ($54 today)
PopMart - ticket price $52.50 - ($82 today)
360 - GA tickets were $55 ($62-$64 today)
I&E - Average ticket price - around $115 depending on city - ($122 today)
JT30 - Average ticket price - around $120 depending on the city
E&I - Average ticket price - around $170 depending on city

In the case of E&I, U2 had also oversaturated the US touring market by having 3 tours in 3 years.

They have to let us miss them a bit and lower prices.