Moggio

I've already gone over how and why I've come to the conclusions I've arrived at.

That's NOT what I said. I said that with one set of shows it was that low.

And again, she didn't tour for another FIVE YEARS after that.


If you look at each and every U2 tour gross, you'll notice it constantly increases. You'll also notice, their album sales constantly increase (of course). And when you look at the both of them in terms of rising percentages in relation to one another, every time U2 hits the road, in U2's case, the answer is obvious. If you can't see the obvious, then I can't help ya...

Moggio

You're missing my point, entirely...

Maoilbheannacht

You didn't say the words "ONE YEAR AFTER". In your first qoute, you admit that U2 underplayed on the Vertigo tour and that they could have grossed somewhere between 10% and 20% more than the actually did. You even said that the tour gross could have been $450,000,000!

Also remember, your the one who thinks it only takes one year for the market to completely recover.



Did Madonna play San Diego in 2006? Nope. So there for, if were going to accurately compare U2 and Madonna's Los Angeles performances in 2005 and 2006, U2's San Diego shows must be added in, since as you said, Madonna's San Diego fans obviously impacted her Los Angeles sales performance.

Just with U2's Spring shows, they did 10.3 million from the San Diego and LA area shows. Yes, Madonna did 10.5 million from her shows, but U2 returned for two more soldout shows in the fall which puts them over the top.


U2 are more popular than you think they are. The content of my posts are objective and realistic. Something that obviously is escaping you.

Its a strong possibility no matter how much you dread it happening.


Ok, here are the results adjusted for inflation, all in 2005 dollars:


Take a look at these differences between POPMART and VERTIGO:

73. Atlanta November 26, 1997 Georgia Dome GROSS: $1,619,137 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 more than TWICE 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: $1,092,057 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 almost 70% HIGHER than 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.


Which just talking about the results of the tour, and its clear U2 would have much stronger attendance on a coast to coast stadium tour of the United States, even if the average price was $120 dollars, than they did on the POPMART tour. They averaged 36,000 on POPMART and they would only need to get to 44,000 to equal the average of the ZOO TV Outside Broadcast Tour.


If you came up with the formula's and idea's yourself, I can understand why you can't find any sources or people that have the same exact view. If you did not come up with the formula's and idea's yourself, then you should be able to show where or from whom you got them from.


But no one knew that would be the case in 1996.


Thats not necessarily true. Tampa ZOO TV and Denver ZOO TV grossed more than POPMART Tampa and POPMART Denver and thats without adjusting for inflation. The Elevation Tour had a lower gross than the POPMART tour.




Something that is very, very revealing about Madonna's touring from 2001 to 2008, is despite how freqruently she has toured, she nearly always plays different markets or completely skips some markets which naturally boost demand for the markets that she does play. The only markets that Madonna has played every tour since 2001 are the following:

London
Paris

Los Angeles
San Fran/Oakland
Chicago
Boston
New York City
Philadelphia
Miami
Las Vegas


Essentially, the only markets she has bothered to play consistently on each tour are the biggest ones and there are only two in Europe and 8 in the United States. Then, when we examine how often she has played these markets, we discover its roughly the same as U2 have played in total on just two of their tours.

So this idea that Madonna has oversaturated the market in Chicago or anywhere else is total rubbish. Its clear that her gross totals are inflated from playing such a limited number of shows in various countries forcing fans in many cities and towns to travel to other markets to see her.

If Madonna, were to tour like U2, her average gross per show would drop. Even with the limited number of shows she is doing on the current tour, she is struggling to sell tickets in markets like Chicago. There are still relatively cheap tickets available for many of these shows.


Again, look at Switzerland! U2 played there 10 times before they played there on the Vertigo tour in 2005. Madonna just played there for the first time this year. To say that Madonna has underplayed Switzerland is a gross understatement. She had never played there before which dramatically inflated the gross she made there this year.

Moggio

I said that ONE YEAR AFTER the second leg of the Vertigo tour ended. Don't you get it? And hence 10-20% growth would be the best case scenario - and that's being very generous. Don't you get it?

For many artists, yes. Not for all artists.

No, I said ONLY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE of her San Diego fans would. Not EVERY San Diego fan would travel to LA.

Wrong. U2's LA metro area fall 2005 shows were RETURN ENGAGEMENTS.

You're definitely in denial.

How original. You're stealing what I just said to support your own thoughts?

Not according to the evidence. And I don't dread it.

1. None of the Atlanta Vertigo shows "sold out", as there are ALWAYS tickets available. Promoters can make concerts look full, if they want to, based on the adjustment of venue capacities & ticket prices in relation to what the gross is. And Philips Arena's capacity is higher than 20,160. And on the first leg of the Elevation tour, they sold 20,596 tickets at the same venue with the same setup.

2. For Tampa, inflation went up about 17% from 1997 to 2005. And then U2 sold around 40% more albums during this period. Your example actually fits the formula I'm talking about, as does their tours OVERALL. Also, Tampa was not "sold out", as there ALWAYS are ticket available. Promoters can make concerts look full, if they want to, based on the adjustment of venue capacities & ticket prices in relation to what the gross is.

3. I was talking about OVERALL tour gross, when I said that each & every U2 tour grosses more than the last, in relation to overall album sales, at that point in time. I wasn't talking about a specific market, as there's always going to be weaker/stronger markets on each tour...


I've already proven that to be incorrect with compelling evidence to the contrary.

What I've gone over with you now explicitly, isn't difficult to figure out. And it's beyond obvious that it's how U2's tours are structured (with a few exceptions).

Really? How do you know that?

OVERALL, although the PopMart tour's grosses only increased by a very small margin from the ZOO TV tour (apart from a few markets that they hadn't played in before and a few other exceptions), they did basically sustain. And this is because Pop tanked and didn't sell as well as expected. If their next album tanks, the Vertigo tour grosses might have a similar fate..but I doubt it because U2 aren't musically on the cutting edge anymore and write with the same forumla that their past two studio albums are comprised of.

Not in North America. And the only reason why it grossed less in the UK/Europe was because, like on this continent, they scheduled the tour in arenas and structured the tour around the demand from PopMart...but at higher prices. They did this because they weren't sure how well ATYCLB was going to do because of how badly Pop did. But promoters did leave gaps in the schedule where they could add shows if necessary (the NYC metro area for example), just in case the album did do better than expected - which it did...


Madonna has NOT "nearly always played different markets or completely skips some markets which naturally boost demand for the markets that she does play". You're conveniently forgetting that Madonna plays multiple shows in most markets she plays in. That brings her total amount of shows to roughly half of her entire recent tours. Also many of the markets surrounding the other markets she plays already have their own shows and hence larger percentages of fans don't need to travel to the centralized markets to see her. And that renders the rest of the rubbish in your above post irrelevant...

I've gone over this a million times before.

Madonna grossed more in this country than U2 did. That means, she's a larger draw. It doesn't matter how many times U2's played there. Madonna is obviously more popular there - and that's very impressive, considering she's only played there ONCE.

And for example, U2's played Vancouver several times but Madonna isn't going to outgross them (it's one of the few markets where she can't) when she plays BC Place Stadium on the 30th of this month. But by your logic, that means she will outgross U2 just because she's playing here for the first time...

Maoilbheannacht

You NEVER said it was the "best case scenario", you said that it was the situation. You stated that U2 could have grossed $450 million dollars instead of just $389 million dollars. The range by which they could have grossed more was at least 10% but as high as 20%.

I can post your words again if you like.

Who were we debating about when this came up, U2 and the Rolling Stones. I don't see why it would not apply to Madonna.


All I'm doing is using the same camparison you used for Fresno/San fran, and Philadelphia/Atlantic City. If your going to match them up, then you can match up San Diego/Los Angeles.

It doesn't matter. Many U2 fans that were unable to get tickets in the spring were able to get them in the fall.

Your an anti-U2 troll who will say anything to reduce the level of U2's popularity or put some bad light on the band all the while pretending to be objective. Anyone who would look at your current post history would agree.

Sure.

False. There are a finite number of tickets available. I actually checked for tickets for this show, and could not get any through ticketmaster. Someone reselling a ticket is irrelevant. Its already a purchase as far as the band is concerned.


There can be small changes in total capacity for a large number of reasons that actually don't involve the artist playing to a smaller than total available capacity. Again, you could not get tickets through ticketmaster, plus none of the pictures show any gaps that would explain not selling 400 tickets. Changes to the structure of the interior could account for the difference.

I adjusted the inflation rates based on the annual US inflation rate as reported by the federal government. The concert was soldout because fans were unable to get tickets through ticketmaster.

Notice that U2's gross in Tampa went DOWN after ZOO TV with POPMART, but went up with VERTIGO EVEN when you adjust for inflation. So much for your little formula which is not even relevant to the point being made.


But we were talking about specific markets and your responded with this formula to explain things. In addition, gross on the Elevation tour was not as high as the POPMART tour.


Its what you have imagined, you have not proved anything.


If you came up with the formula's and idea's yourself, I can understand why you can't find any sources or people that have the same exact view. If you did not come up with the formula's and idea's yourself, then you should be able to show where or from whom you got them from.

Because Madonna never stated that she was planning NOT to tour for the next five years.


Its this type of BS which shows you are an anti-U2 troll. Its the basic thing anyone could conclude from looking at your posting history on a U2 fan website.


The above is probably your weakest argument of all and is actually contradicted by your own statements.

The ONLY markets, Madonna has consistently played since 2001 on each tour are the following:

London
Paris

Los Angeles
San Fran/Oakland
Chicago
Boston
New York City
Philadelphia
Miami
Las Vegas


Yes, she has played these cities multiple times at each stop, with the exception of Miami, Los Angeles, London, and Philadelphia this year.

But for example take Chicago. She has will have played 12 shows there since 2001 by the end of this tour. U2 by contrast has already played 12 shows in Chicago over just a four year period from 2001 to 2005. In addition, Madonna's 2001 shows in Chicago were her first shows there since 1990, 11 YEARS!!!!! Madonna will have only played Chicago 17 times by the end of this year, for her ENTIRE career. If U2 do Arena's next year, they may be at 18 shows for Chicago just from 2001 through 2009.

Even when you take a market that Madonna has never skipped except once in 1993, you can't claim she is a bigger draw than U2 is there and that the only reason her Chicago shows this year won't gross $11 million dollars is because she has oversaturated the market. By U2's standards she has underplayed the market which explains why her per show gross is higher.

Again, there are only two shows in Chicago this year, and there are still $98 dollar tickets available from ticketmaster.


As you have so often said, underplaying a certain market contributes to a higher gross when the artist does finally play that market. To say that Madonna has underplayed Switzerland is a gross understatement. She has NEVER played there before. She has been an ACTIVE recording artist since 1983 and has sold hundreds of millions of albums worldwide. This is the first time in a QUARTER OF A CENTURY that SWISS fans got to see her in their own country.

By contrast, U2 had already played in Switzerland 10 times over the years prior to their Vertigo Swiss show. If U2 had toured Europe as sparingly as Madonna did and never played Switzerland, the Vertigo Tour Swiss should would have easily outgrossed her show.

A better comparison to Madonna's shows in Austria and Switzerland would be to compare them to the Police. The Police had never played either country before, so in that sense they are somewhat on the same playing field. BUT, to be fair to the Police, they have not had an active recording career for 25 years, while Madonna has had an active recording career for the past 25 years, so even in this case, Madonna's figures relative to the Police are a big inflated because of that difference.


If Madonna does not outgross U2's two Vertigo shows there, all it would show is that she has a relatively low level of popularity there compared to U2. If she had played Vancouver as many times as U2 had, she would not be playing the stadium on this tour stop, or even more likely, would not be playing there at all this year.

Again, when you have NEVER played a certain market before and have had a 25 year ACTIVE recording career that is one of the most popular in the world preceding the show, it heavily inflates the demand level in that market.

Moggio

Sure. You can post all the quotes you want. Then I'll post how you actually were trying to prove that U2 were a larger draw than the Stones, even though the Stones grossed nearly $170 million more than U2 did on their previous tours by using the same "techniques" you're using here...

I didn't have to say it was the best case scenario because ONLY AFTER ONE YEAR, it was obvious. No major artist's grosses/ back catalogue album sales increase that much in only one year, after they've already been established. YOU KNOW THAT.

The point at which an artists' demand eventually sustains full circle, depends on how hardcore that artists' fanbase is. So it obviously doesn't apply to every artist's fanbase.


No, you can't. Simply because Atlantic City/Philadelphia are virtually the same market, since they are extremely close together. And because Fresno received no show in 2004 but did in 2006 and hence is why the gross/attendance was lower in 2006 in the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose metro area than compared to 2004. Whereas, LA and San Diego are not the same market and could only be "matched up" if one or the other didn't receive a show.

Wrong.

While I don't like their current music, I love their older material. So that's not true. All I'm doing is bringing realistic and objective thought into this forum (something it desperately needs), without having fanboys like you trying to make U2 look like they're the largest draw in the world, when they clearly aren't. Anyone who would look at your current post history would agree.


Not true.

That's NOT what I said.

Wrong. There are always tickets available. If a ticket is available to a show, it's NOT sold out.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Keep spinnin' it...


Incorrect.

The formula still stands, as I already went over the logical exceptions with you...that were few and far between.

You can't be serious? The numbers the don't lie.

How, when or where I got them from is of no concern. The point here is that I've proven to you without a doubt that U2's overall tour grosses in relation to their album sales, tells the story quite clearly when analyzing their concert demand (apart from a few exceptions). It's very simple.

She didn't have to...IT'S OBVIOUS.

No, it's actually true that U2 aren't on the cutting edge anymore. And if I'm an anti-U2 troll, then why an I about to listen to The Unforgettable Fire in a few minutes?

Not in the least. And look who's talking.

So what? She has short tours.


And you say I construct bad comparisons regarding CURRENT demand? Adding up to total amount of shows they've both played in one market over a several year period does NOTHING to prove your patently ridiculous points, whatsoever. Demand can (and has in this case) change rapidly over that period of time. This is your most hilarious post so far!

She's played in Chicago every other year for five years. With a massive touring artist like Madonna, that can obviously change things. For you not to see that is unbelievable. But the fact that she can and has outgrossed U2 there for the past five years is very impressive.

Again, for the two millionth time...TICKETS ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE.

You've just contradicted yourself using your U2 and Madonna examples regarding their demand levels in Switzerland and Vancouver. You use the Switzerland example to try and make U2 look more popular than Madonna, even though they didn't even come close to grossing more than Madonna there, by stating they've played more shows in this country than she has and because she's only played there once. Whereas, when looking at Vancouver's demand for these two artists, even though Madonna will have only played here once (just like Switzerland), you state that if she does not outgross U2 here, it's because there's low demand.

Two completely different outcomes, despite stating one specific example regarding the demand level of playing a particular market only once.

And whether or not Madonna wouldn't be able to outgross U2 in Switzerland if she had already played there several times over the years, like U2, instead of once, is something you cannot prove, even remotely, even if it were true...which it isn't.

Let's look at their most current Switzerland grosses:

U2
July 18, 2005
Zurich, Switzerland
Stadion Letzigrund
Capacity: 44,260
Attendance: 44,260
Gross: $3,574,993 USD

Madonna
August 30, 2008
Zurich, Switzerland
Military Airfield
Capacity: 70,314
Attendance: 70,314
Gross: $11,093,631 USD


Congrats! This is now your most ridiculous post so far!

So remember people...if runner A (Madonna) wins the race, they really haven't won the race...because runner B (U2) was ahead of them for 60% (or fill in adjustable percentage) of the entire race!

Thanks for the continuous entertainment! See ya tomorrow night!

Maoilbheannacht

I claimed that U2 were a larger draw than the Rolling Stones outside of the USA/Canada market because nearly every show soldout the day it was put on sale, while the Rolling Stones shows only slowly crawled to sellouts or often did not even sellout. Despite playing many more shows than U2 did outside the USA/Canada market, their gross was only $20 million dollars higher outside the USA/Canada market. Then, if we take your formula which says that U2 could have grossed somewhere between 10% and 20% more on the tour, as well as inflation, then U2 is clearly the leader outside the USA/Canada market over the Stones.


Oh yes, it was obvious. Your statement was that U2 could have grossed $450 million dollars, between 10% and 20% more. You didn't mention any of this other crap.

We were already talking about specific artist, the biggest names in the industry.