Is seems that four or five times a year there is huge controversy over concert ticket availability.

Sometimes the performers fein concern.

So
Why don't they schedule four dates in the general vicinity, rather than one or two?

And if those sell out in three hours offer another date.

What's the down side to making you fans happy?

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Is seems that four or five times a year there is huge controversy over concert ticket availability.

Sometimes the performers fein concern.

So
Why don't they schedule four dates in the general vicinity, rather than one or two?

And if those sell out in three hours offer another date.

What's the down side to making you fans happy?

They often announce a show or two and have the option to add another or two. They can’t add enough shows in some places. Part of the issue is time. Planning a stadium tour is no small undertaking. Lots of moving parts. The stadiums have other events booked. Gear and people need to go from one to the next. Being on the road for months on end takes a toll. The load in for a stadium show can take multiple days depending on the set. Then it has to be dismantled and put on trucks to another stadium. Many acts have multiples but it’s a hassle.

The shows sellout because bots and brokers get most of the tickets. It guarantees a sellout for the artist. It screws the fans. Too many shows mean too many tickets and not selling out the venue is a bad look. It’s better to have excess demand than having to paper the event.

I assume you are talking about Taylor Swift here.

Someone like Taylor Swift plays in venues that are booked way in advance and availably is pretty limited at most of them. Go look at the events schedule for MSG in NYC or Staples center in LA and you’ll see that there is something planned for pretty much every day. Because of that alone extending after tickets have gone on sale and offering additional nights is virtually impossible as it would not only require the venue to be available, but also often require the tour to adjust the future schedule which would be extremely difficult and piss off fans who bought tickets for those future shows.

It’s not uncommon for bands to play multiple shows in one city, MSG is a popular place to play multiple shows, but those are planned in advance as part of the tour. Occasionally bands will add shows in cities after high ticket sales but the tour management planned on that being a possibility (or planned on a second night all along and releasing an extra night was a marketing ploy) and had already verified availability of the venue and scheduled the remaining dates around possibly or plan to) opening up extra performances.

Sounds like a lot of avoidable excuses.

You either have the ability to provide a service . . .
Or .
You don't

According to more than a few big name performers.

There is close to no mont in c.d. or record sale
And
They make a lot more money on live performances.

So why !

Not make make an effort to stop pissing off the people who want to throw money at you.

" We don't have time"
We get too tired"
It's complicated"
" The sun's too bright"
" Wardrobe problems"

Blah de fucking blah

So do it right or quit doing it's

Well when you go multi-platinum on your next album you should do it differently.

This is one of those topics where I know enough to know that the people scheduling her tour are as good at this thing as it gets. If there were enough money in it, or if they thought a crew, the gear and the artist could handle it, they’d be doing it. There are a lot of reasons why they don’t.

quote:

Not make make an effort to stop pissing off the people who want to throw money at you.

" We don't have time"
We get too tired"
It's complicated"
" The sun's too bright"
" Wardrobe problems"

Blah de fucking blah

So do it right or quit doing it's

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree it is pure bullshit. Should add we are on drugs and alcohol and do not really care about our fans

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Sounds like a lot of avoidable excuses.

You either have the ability to provide a service . . .
Or .
You don't

According to more than a few big name performers.

There is close to no mont in c.d. or record sale
And
They make a lot more money on live performances.

So why !

Not make make an effort to stop pissing off the people who want to throw money at you.

" We don't have time"
We get too tired"
It's complicated"
" The sun's too bright"
" Wardrobe problems"

Blah de fucking blah

So do it right or quit doing it's

Optimization.

A show costs money to produce. That cost is relatively fixed, whether you sell out 100% of the seats or have only 1 person show up.

Your show is most profitable if you sell out 100% of the seats.

Next, there is risk. Each show date is a risk for the Event producer. If a show gets cancelled because the performer gets injured, gets sick, or if the venue suffers some catastrophe (like, for example, a government lockdown due to pandemic), each show date becomes a liability.

So, optimally, you want the biggest venue that you can reliably fill to 100% capacity, and plan the exact number of show dates for that venue that will each fill to 100%.

If you have any show dates that aren't 100% capacity, then you've bought additional risk (too many show dates) for more money than you should have (less than max profit per ticket).

So, ultimately, if a venue holds 50,000 people and you estimate that you can sell 180,000 tickets in a city, then you only sell 3 nights (150,000 seats). 30,000 people won't be able to get tickets, but that's better than planning a 4th night that will only fill to 60% capacity. (or 4 shows at 90% capacity)

Also, as a performer, it's better to have a Sold Out show (scarcity drives popularity) than to have a show at 90% capacity. Sad is the performer who can't sell out her shows.

Look the airlines have it figured out why cant rock stars?

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:

Blah de fucking blah

So do it right or quit doing it's

Part of the problem in the concert industry is high tech, specifically online sales. Back in the day when I frequented concerts, it used to be that people had to get in line to buy actual tickets. Sure, scalpers had their people in line, but for the most part, true fans got to see the shows. Now with online sales, bots, and other corruptive techniques screw fans out of tickets at retail pricing. These scalpers use high tech to virtually vacuum up thousands of tickets in mere minutes, and later sell for inflated pricing. IMO, the concert ticket industry is a highly corrupt one.

One artist who did it differently, in favor of his fans, was Prince when he played the L.A. Forum (seats 15,000) in 2011 for an amazing 21 night stand. He priced most of the tickets each show for $25, which included service fees, amazing for even 2011. He did not sell out many of the shows, which allowed fans to get VIP seats for 10% of their value ($750), and for others to walk up to the box office right before showtime and get entrance for 10 bucks on a weeknight. I doubt you'll see something like that again.

Ticketmaster needs to be busted up. I remember back in the 90s the first time I used them. The ticket was $25, but all the fees doubled it. And there was even a user fee for paying a service fee. But John Oliver did a show on ticket sales months before the Tay-Tay debacle. Buying big name tickets sounds like an absolute nightmare for the fans. Oliver is a lefty D-Bag, bug that episode was very good.

Also RIAA needs to learn from he Napster mess. Most artists get pennies for every CD sold. They need to go on tour to make money, and merch sales is the biggest source of income. The concert I went to a few months ago there was sticker shock in buyng concert shirts, but I remember it goes to the band, not some parasite. Rocking one of their sweatshirts right now. Kid Rock is known to take paycuts on tour to pass the savings on to his fans in lower tickets and merch prices.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Look the airlines have it figured out why cant rock stars?

Rock stars have figured it out. It’s the current system. You think if there was a way to make more money they wouldn’t be doing it? All this “loving to share their music” and “I love the fans” and whatever else is secondary to making heaps of money. If it was about rewarding their die hard fans and sharing the music with them the shows could be pulled off at cost yet tickets are hundreds of dollars. Tours are about making money period.

I was referring to the people the rockstars employ to handle this.

Funny enough if you look at Taylor Swifts new tour dates she’s doing pretty much exactly what the OP seems to want. She is playing almost every city multiple days in a row ending with 5 nights in LA. I don’t do music anymore but I’d love to be on that tour.

But the downside for a lot of fans is that she is only playing 20 cities so if you don’t live in one of those cities then you have to add in travel and lodging expenses.

Live nation manages or owns the venues
LN also employees/contracts the production teams often

Ticketmaster has exclusive ticketing contracts with venues, including those that aren’t operated by LN

Live Nation and Ticketmaster are the same company. A subsidiary/break off of iHeart/clear channel

It gets exceptionally complicated. Both production and logistics.

Many of the premier BIG production acts have multiple production teams staged around the country to have the venue set up for the next date as the previous travels to the next. Often there can be 2-3 teams on either side of the country to accommodate all the shows scheduled

Gone are the days a semi caravan follows the top tier artists with BIG production shows. In many cases it gone more towards minimal production

I’m many cases venues takes a percentage of the merch sold each night. It’s been a very common practice for many years. This includes smaller venues also

6 billion people made it to Woodstock with out computers or cell phones.


If you build it they will come

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
6 billion people made it to Woodstock with out computers or cell phones.


If you build it they will come

A little hyperbole here. I think the attendance at Woodstock was about 400,000, not 6 billion.

flashguy

Everyone complains about Ticketmaster and other resellers scooping up all the tickets. The bands claim to be upset about it.

Reality is the promoters would rather have 100% of tickets sold to the re-sellers. They have their money guaranteed and its up to someone else to fill the stadium. If there are 100,000 seats and 20,000 show up, someone else takes the loss. Everything else is just mock concern to keep from pissing too many people off.

this is just another reason I prefer smaller venues and a bit more obsure (well kinda) Artist,

biggest venues I have been to are Merriweather Post (Costello, numerous times, Talking Heads, The Killers and a few others) and Jiffy Lube in Manassas, (James Taylor, Coldplay, few others) most other shows have been the same artist, or similar, in small venues, (930 Club, The Lincoln, Norva, The National , Birchmere, etc) an been mostly sold out, and good shows,

The appearance of exclusivity.

I don't know if that's a real term or if I'm just George Bush-ing terms into existence here, but that's what I call it.

If everyone can do it, or afford to do it, the appearance of exclusivity is gone. Why is a Mercedes so much more expensive and rare than a Ford? Does it move people from A to B in such a different and effective manner as to justify the price? No, but if they were the same price, nobody would want a Mercedes. The value of the thing isn't real, it's all in perception and exclusivity.

If everyone can afford to go to the concert whenever they want, nobody would want to go...and they certainly wouldn't pay thousands to do it.

If there was no appearance of exclusivity, people might realize she's a three-cord hack whose biggest hits are all songs about how every man she's ever met can't stand her.

I wouldn't bother to put on pants to go see a Trailer Swift concert if it was in my backyard and free. But although she's in her early 20s now, I once had a teenage daughter, so I understand the fascination and obsession aspects of the event.

A huge part of that strategy is marketing.

Concert prices are demonstrably underpriced for the demand. The proof is the amount of scalpers and ticket flippers. If tickets were priced correctly, there would not be much profit to be made from flipping tickets. When there's not much profit to be made, demand from the ticket flippers will wane and the supply will meet the demand.

But the concert managers like that because it creates hype. Never mind, too, that I'm sure their friends get in on the action.