Maoilbheannacht

Its an opportunity for you to lend some credibility to your claims. Of course, if your claims are exclusively original and no one in the industry agrees with you, then your not going to find any sources to back you up.


Did Madonna say at any time between 1993 and 1997 that she had no plans to tour until 2001? If you can find a source which confirms that she did, then you might have a point, if not then you have to admit that she was still considered an active artist at that point.


The numbers don't lie, but your formula's and idea's about them are very questionable and so far are not supported by any sources.

Well, then it should be rather easy for you to point to a source that confirms these things.


Another way of looking at it is that Madonna has severely underplayed the global tour market when compared to U2 when compare their careers which started roughly at the same time, U2's first album release was in 1980, Madonna's first album release was in 1983.

Because Madonna has so underplayed the market for most of her career, her smaller tours have inflated gross figures.

U2 has been playing shows in Switzerland since 1987, Madonna just played there for the first time a few months ago.

mosquito

I know that the Michael jackson 1997 European tour boxscores were published on Billboard magazine between july and september of 1997,but i can´t find those issues.

Moggio

Of course.

At that point in time, U2 did not underplay the market. And for the second time now, I was utilizing the best case scenario. STOP MISQUOTING ME.


I'm referring to the fact that simply because Madonna didn't play Fresno in 2004 and did in 2006, that that was the reason why her gross was HIGHER in the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area in 2004 compared to 2006 - and hence demand is adjusted when something like that happens. And for example, Madonna didn't play San Diego in 2006 but is this year - and hence her LA gross will be the same or lower this year than compared to 2006...

Get it?

Moggio

Give me a break. It won't come to that. And that's not what I'm saying, anyways. My point was that you'll use ANY excuse in the book to make U2 look more popular than they really are. And it's been going on for YEARS.

STOP MISQUOTING ME. That's not what I said.

Wrong.

Your gross estimations are too high. It would be lower than that. But let's take the accurate parts from the above and look at it closer:

U2's North American average price next year won't be $100. It was just over $97 on the Vertigo tour in 2005. Their average gross per night on this continent in 2005 was around $1.8 million. By next year, since U2 will have sold 10-15% more albums since 2005 and since inflation will have gone up 11-12%, it means that $138 million will turn into roughly $170 million, if they basically play the same amount of shows. This means next year, their average attendance would still be around 18,000 fans per night, with a per night gross of around $2.2 million (it may be slightly higher depending on how many stadium shows they schedule here, if any). And their average price will turn out to be roughly $120.

So, from that, if they did a full stadium tour, the average attendance you quoted of 44,000 from 42 stadium shows would be way off, since, apart from other factors, there wouldn't be any return engagements and hence the $170 million gross would be more like $150 million. And even though their average gross would be nearly $3.6 million per night, there would be less than 30,000 fans per night (or around 33,000 fans per night, if prices only go up with inflation from 2005)...and even less than that if they played more shows here. So, we'd obviously be looking at PopMart-type attendance...

Moggio

You must've been misinterpreting what I was talking about.

But we're not looking at that, when judging current demand. We're looking at her most recent tours. And she's been on the road almost every other year since 2001. It can change things...

Not necessarily. The fact is, is that Madonna has outgrossed U2 in most markets both have comparably played and is obviously a larger grossing artist than U2 is overall and worldwide. And when you try discredit that by stating ridiculous reasons as to how or why she has grossed more than U2 and how that means U2 still is a larger draw than she is, overall, doesn't do anything to support your claims in this discussion. You can spin it any way you want. My point still stands. The numbers don't lie.


Nope. And again, in this case, it doesn't really matter how or why. She's more popular than U2. And that's that.

Moggio

Credibility? Like I said, I've studied this business forever. What exactly do you want? Certificates? Licenses? I think anyone reading this thread knows that I know what I'm talking about and can see the obvious logic I'm posting. I'm not saying I know it all because I don't and I have been wrong before. But come one, for you to deny the bulk of what I'm stating here, you'd have to deny that return engagements don't detract from overall gross when viewing the actual and true amount of attendance and gross there really is for an artist(s) per tour, and that there isn't such thing as shifting of demand for a centralized market, when nearby markets don't get hit, etc.

And anyways, a few years back, we already had similar discussions. And you even said that you thought the return engagement percentages were HIGHER than compared to what I said. Remember?

Can anyone say, hypocrite?


It's BEYOND OBVIOUS. No touring for nearly EIGHT years for a MAJOR star like Madonna. Come on...

And again, just because there is no an actual statement, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Again, what exactly do you want? Certificates? Licenses? I've taken the time to explicitly go over all of this with you. I don't have to be doing this. And it's all logical, as far as I'm concerned.

No, it wouldn't, actually. Look, promoters don't hold courses for the public on how to predict concert demand. It comes through YEARS of time and experience.

Again, it doesn't really matter in this case as to how and why. The stats don't lie when comparing markets they've both played in - which show Madonna is the larger draw. And it's beyond obvious that she's more popular than U2 is, overall and worldwide.

Give it a rest, already.

Moggio

Do you know how much we could learn from each other if you would just admit to certain things?

Seriously.

Because, for starters, I have the near entire boxscore listings for The Police's 2007-2008 30th Anniversary tour. And I'd like to share them with you in the near future...

genesis199125

i wonder how much profit U2 makes from their tours? Even though take in hundreds of millions of dollars from ticket sales, the cost of the tour must be incredibly high, and whatnot.

Maoilbheannacht

Billboard Boxscore considers Bruce Springsteen's 10 shows at Giants Stadium in July and August of 2003 to be one set of dates, despite the fact that they have a 3 week gap.


In NONE of your qoutes about the 10-20% higher gross U2 could have achieved do you state that U2 "DID NOT UNDERPLAY" this market or that market.

You also never claim that the 10-20% was a best case scenario. You claim that level by which U2 could have grossed was somewhere between 10% and 20% higher than what they actually did.

Here are your qoutes:


Again, there is nothing in the qoutes above saying that 10% to 20% was only the best situation. You state that it was the situation. There is also no mention of specific markets being underplayed. You say in general that U2 did underplay on the Vertigo Tour. Such a general statement about the whole tour would obviously apply to one of the biggest markets on the tour.




Well, then you can't be claiming that Fresno is virtually the same market as San Fran but San Diego is not virtually the same market as Los Angeles.

If you take U2's spring results from 2005 for Los Angeles and San Diego, they are equal to Madonna's 2006 Los Angeles results. Add in U2's fall 2005 results for Los Angeles, and U2 is definitely ahead in the LA market.

Maoilbheannacht

The financial crises is serious but its economic impacts are not yet known. Such a level of uncertainty causes consumers to hold on to their money. We'll see what happens.


Your coming into a U2 fan website with nearly all your posts being attempts to make U2 look less popular than they really are. You'll use any excuse in the book to make U2 look less popular. You did this in 2004-2005, on the UKMIX FORUM, and now your back doing it again in of all places a U2 fan website. Just take a look at what you have posted so far in your latest visit here.





U2 had an average of 36,000 attendance on POPMART back in 1997.
U2 are more popular today and provided the economy does not drop as some are predicting, I think U2 could easily do a tour that averaged 44,000 per night from 42 stadium shows based on the results of the Vertigo Tour.

Take a look at these differences between POPMART and VERTIGO:

73. Atlanta November 26, 1997 Georgia Dome GROSS: $1,325,288 ATTENDANCE: 26,491

94, 95. Atlanta, Ga. : Nov. 18-19, 2005 : Philips Arena : GROSS $3,500,572 : ATTENDANCE 40,320 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2


In Atlanta, U2 gross nearly 3 times as much on the Vertigo Tour and attendance is increased by 50% at least. Notice that both shows for Vertigo Atlanta soldout all of the tickets made available on the initial day of sales. POPMART Atlanta by contrast was on sale for 6 months and only reached the 26,491 level. Clearly, stadium attendance for an Atlanta Vertigo show would have been at least 40,000 given the rapid rate of the two sellouts.


Here is another example:

68. Tampa November 10, 1997 Houlihan's Stadium GROSS: $893,865 ATTENDANCE: 17,776

93. Tampa, Fla. : Nov. 16, 2005 : St. Pete Times Forum : GROSS $1,825,243 : ATTENDANCE 19,354 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

U2's gross on VERTIGO is more than DOUBLE that of their 1997 POPMART show. In addition, despite the fact that Vertigo took place in an arena instead of a stadium, attendance for the Vertigo show is higher than the POPMART stadium show. Whats more, the Vertigo show soldout within hours, the POPMART show was on sale for 6 months.

Maoilbheannacht

The fact is, Madonna often skips many markets on her tours. But lets take a look at one market Madonna has never skipped on her four tours since 2001, Chicago.

Your claim is that if she does not hit $11 million dollars on the current tour, its because she has over saturated the market by playing to often.

But how often has Madonna actually played Chicago since 2001? 12 times, the same number of times U2 has played Chicago. Chicago is one of the few markets that she actually plays every tour as well, but even here, she has not played it more than U2 has so far in this decade, although next
U2 will over take her with shows in that market for the decade even though its one of the few markets that Madonna has always consistently played.

Below is a text book case of SPIN:


Lets take a market like Switzerland. U2 played that market 10 times before it played its show there on the Vertigo Tour. Up until this year, Madonna had never played Switzerland. To see that Madonna had underplayed Switzerland in the past is a gross understatement.

Since you have always said that underplaying markets leads to bigger results the next time the artist comes around, you must acknowledge the fact that NEVER playing a market drastically inflates the results when the artist finally plays the market.

Below is a gross example of SPIN:

Maoilbheannacht

You claimed that the formula's and idea's were actually not your own, so I simply asked where you got them from. If the formula's and idea's are not your own, who, what, or where did you get them from?

You used to say that return engagements were only 5% to 10% and yes I thought that it was higher. But my idea was simply an estimated guess. I admit that I don't really know if its for sure or not. I have not seen or done a test that would actually confirm it. I certainly cannot site anything or anyone else that has said the same thing, and would never claim that such an opinion is beyond debate.



Again, in 1996, Madonna had only been off the road for 2 to 3 years. Its not obvious at all.


I'd be happy to see any type of source you could provide. Just because idea's and theory's are logical does not mean they are actually correct or an actual example of reality.


How do you even know that promoters have the same view as you do on these formula's and idea's? There are a number of business magazines like Billboard, and Billboardbiz.com that talk about these types of things in various types of articles.

Maoilbheannacht

I could easily say the same thing.

I have nearly the entire tour as well. I'm only missing three shows, Mexico City, Lisbon, and the Denmark show.

Moggio

So what? And a very small percentage of fans returned to each of the following 9 shows and a slightly higher percentage of fans returned to the shows that were 3 weeks later. And a higher percentage of fans returned to the Shea Stadium shows in early October that year.


Wrong. When I said that, it was ONE YEAR after the second North American leg of the Vertigo tour ended. And hence a best case scenario of 10-20% more, ONE YEAR AFTER - which would never have really happened, obviously.

You still obviously don't understand what I'm getting at, do you? When one nearby market doesn't receive a show, a large percentage of fans will travel to the centralized market to see that show. But if another nearby market gets a show, a large percentage of fans doesn't need to travel to the centralized market because they're already getting their own show.

No, they're not. Minus returns, U2 did not gross over $10.5 million in the LA metro area in 2005. San Diego received their own shows, so there was no need for a somewhat large percentage of fans to travel to LA. And even if U2's entire San Diego gross is added to the LA metro area shows' gross, it still doesn't eclipse Madonna's LA metro area total of $10.5 million on her Confessions tour in 2006.

Moggio

U2 are NOT as popular than you think they are. The content of my posts are objective and realistic. Something that obvious escapes you...


Well, as I've shown you above...you're dreaming if you think that U2 could pull off a coast to coast North American STADIUM tour at the prices they're charging nowadays - which will be around $120 next year..

LOL! You're comparing markets from tours that were EIGHT years apart. Inflation went up about 17% and U2 sold about 40% more albums on this continent during this time. And you also conveniently skipped their 2001 Elevation tour. Whereas, the Vertigo tour was in 2005 and their next tour will be next year. And from 2005 to 2009, U2 will have only sold 10-15% more albums on this continent.