Concert Tickets

[Reggie29]

What are your thoughts on current ticket prices?

Do they compare with what you've paid in the past in relation to the percentage of the cost of the ticket to your weekly income?

What have paid and which bands were they?

Please feel free to elaborate.

[Reggie29]

I reckon we shouldn't need to pay any more than 10 - 15% of our weekly income.

1972 Led Zeppelin tickets were $4.00.

TCV earlier this year were around $110.00.

[bigzepfan]

What timing you asked this ?

Over the past week I've taken many hours scanning in my tickets stubs. All 200. They start back in 1981 with Molly Hatchet in Poughkeepsie Civic Center.

1983 ozzy 12.50

2010 TCV, mine were 48 and 57.50 for Indy and chicago.

ted nugent 1981 was 11.25, Music Mountain, South Fallsburgh, NY.

arthur lee tribute with robert plant was 203.50 on the ticket. think i paid 250 scalping.

black sabbath 11/25/81 glens falls, ny 10.00 This was with dio!

eric clapton 6/19/81 saratoga performing arts center 10.00

Ozzfest 2001 143.50

pink floyd 1988 22.50 giants stadium

black sabbath new haven, ct 9.50, Feb 4, i think 1981.

ozzfest 2006 48.00

The firm was only 15.50 in 1986. meadowlands

Slash was 39.50 at the borgata in 2010 which jeff beck was 75.00 also in 2010.

together and apart, clapton and beck at msg. for front floor section 272.20 each. 2010

marshall tucker band 6/20/82 9.00

cream msg 2005 358.50 highest ever face value I've seen.

zeppelin 2007 999(passcode on ebay)+277.50 for two.

so many factors. how many shows, better /worse venues, better/worse seats, midweek vs weekend shows also

tend to drive ticket prices up, at least on the resale market.

[SteveAJones]

Music sales slump, concert ticket costs jump and rock fans pay the price

By ALAN B. KRUEGER

Published: October 17, 2002

IF you have gone to a rock 'n' roll concert lately, you probably noticed that the price of tickets has been rising faster than the decibel level. Although concert prices have always grown somewhat faster than inflation, from 1996 to 2001 the average price soared 62 percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased just 13 percent and the price of sporting events, movies and theater rose 24 percent.

The average price to see Billy Joel and Elton John in concert, for example, jumped from $44 when they toured in 1995 to $110 this year. The best seats rose even more: to $175 from $50.

The reasons for this extraordinary growth are debatable.

Many point to Clear Channel Communications, the giant multimedia conglomerate. After the Telecommunications Act of 1996 relaxed constraints on radio station ownership, Clear Channel gobbled up nearly 1,200 stations. It also owns amphitheaters and billboards. Clear Channel entered the concert promotion industry by acquiring SFX Entertainment in 2000, and it now promotes two-thirds of all concerts, by dollar sales.

Critics have accused the company of monopolizing the industry. Representative Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat, has urged the Justice Department to investigate whether "Clear Channel has 'punished' recording artists, including Britney Spears, for their refusal to use its concert promotion service, Clear Channel Entertainment, by 'burying' radio ads for their concerts and by refusing to play their songs on its radio stations."

Although the anecdotal evidence is strong -- and the concert industry certainly appears to be more monopolized lately, with rising prices and declining ticket sales -- it has proved surprisingly difficult to find systematic evidence linking Clear Channel to the exorbitant growth in concert prices. In particular, analyzing data from Pollstar and Arbitron, I find no correlation between Clear Channel's share of radio listeners in a city or state and its share of concerts promoted there, or between its share of radio listeners and the growth of concert prices. Likewise, there is no correlation between the change in the concentration of concert promoters in an area from 1994 to 2001 and the corresponding growth of prices or ticket sales.

Furthermore, ticket prices have also risen sharply in Canada and Europe since the mid-1990's, suggesting that deregulation of radio in the United States is not driving the trend.

It is certainly possible that Clear Channel uses its muscle to sign up concerts for national or international tours, but one would have expected the regional data to leave some trace of Clear Channel's influence if it was the main force behind accelerating prices.

Another problem is that Clear Channel is losing money on concerts. The company blames artists for demanding higher fees, which it says cause higher ticket prices. Although paying higher fees may reflect predatory behavior intended to drive out competitors, it is nonetheless surprising that Clear Channel has not managed to profit from concerts in areas where it dominates the radio market.

So what does explain the surge in ticket prices?

One possibility is that the cost to the consumer has not actually increased because scalped tickets render the list price irrelevant. The rapid growth in list prices, especially for the best seats, could have merely displaced scalpers. That seems unlikely, however, because declining ticket sales suggest that costs are rising. Fewer concerts sell out, and prices have surged even for those that sell fewer than 90 percent of their tickets.

Furthermore, the extent of scalping is often overrated. To check, I conducted a survey of 858 fans when Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band performed at the First Union Center in Philadelphia this month. The concert was a throwback: every ticket in the house sold for $75, well below the market rate. Yet only 27 percent of the tickets were bought through a scalper or ticket broker, or over the Web. The average ticket that was resold went for around $280, yet most fans paid the list price. The list price is indeed relevant.

Mr. Springsteen deliberately set the price at $75 for his entire tour to give value to his fans -- and succeeded. If the market price for a ticket was $280, Mr. Springsteen gave almost $3 million of extra "consumer surplus" to his fans in Philadelphia, double the ticket revenue the concert actually took in.

So why the surge in ticket prices?

I suspect the main reason is that the growing ability of fans to download music free from the Web -- legally or illegally -- has cut into artists' revenues. Millions of people have downloaded music from Napster, Morpheus and KaZaA -- and bought fewer records as a result. Music sales are plummeting, putting downward pressure on artists' royalties.

In this environment, concerts take on a different meaning for artists and their managers. In pre-Napster days, concert prices were kept below their market rate to help sell albums, a complementary good. Now concert prices are set with an eye toward maximizing concert revenue.

Bands have always had cadres of fans, whose loyalty conferred monopoly power. Yet they were reluctant to exploit this power by charging higher prices because they wanted to sell more albums. When revenue from albums began to dry up, it was natural for bands to raise concert prices.

There is some empirical support for this hypothesis. Jazz and blues fans are probably less likely to download music from the Web than are fans of rock and pop. Since 1996, prices increased by only 20 percent for jazz and blues concerts, but by 74 percent for rock and pop.

"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity," the singer David Bowie said recently. "You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left."

It is not that bands have become greedier; it is that the technology changed to make it less profitable to charge below-market prices for concerts. Not all artists are as generous as Bruce Springsteen -- and even the Boss now charges twice as much as he did in 1996.

http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/10_17_2002.htm

[Virginia]

IMO it depends. The most I've paid is $125/ea for floor seats at the Eagles in the early '00s. U2 came close to that last fall (~$110'ish, but these seats were way up high). I saw DMB/Neil Young within a year of the Eagles, also floor seats, and those were in the upper $60s. I felt those were all reasonable and worth it; and that I'd gotten a really great deal on the Eagles and DMB since our seats were only ~ 20 rows back. On the other hand, I remember feeling really ripped off paying $35 for a bad seat (high up, side view of stage) at the Police's Synchronicity tour in '83, when I was a (poor) college student.

Then this summer I paid in the upper $30s/ea for 3 tickets for Lady Antebellum and thought that was a bargain. In my experience, country is much less expensive. Keith Urban/Sugarland were around $65/70 in '09 and that was quite reasonable.

I saw way more concerts when I was young and only working part time, but there was no mortgage and no kids. Not as much disposable income now, so it has to be really worth it. Since $125 is my prior max, I can't justify paying $150 for a one day pass to Zepp Fest, for instance (no offense meant to anyone involved). There aren't many bands I would outspend what I paid to see The Eagles, U2 or the Police (adjusted for inflation). It would have to be a band I've loved for years.

Now, if there had been something like Bonnaroo when I was young, I am sure I would have gone and paid whatever. That would have been a neat experience, but I'm too old for that stuff now, and I don't camp

[Electrophile]

Copypasta from another thread:

When my dad saw Pink Floyd at Soldier Field in 1977, it cost him $10. However that was the 70s -- artists can get away with asking for high prices for their tickets because they know they'll sell. The Rolling Stones and other such acts wouldn't charge what they do if they thought no one would spend it.

And if you can't afford to spend $200 on a ticket to a rock concert but you spend it anyway, that's your problem, not the band's. They don't force the people at gunpoint into the arena, they don't threaten to kill someone's mother if they don't pony up the money. I really wanted to see Bruce Springsteen when he came back to NC earlier this year, but I couldn't afford to go, so I didn't. That doesn't mean I should get mad at him for not charging cheaper prices. I get tired of listening to people whine about ticket prices, yet they spend the money anyway. Newsflash: If the prices are too exorbitant and you don't think Artist X should charge that much, don't go. Don't spend the money and then bitch that you spent it. Look at your financial situation and ask yourself you can afford to spare the money. If you can, go and have a good time. If you can't, stay home and wait for a bootleg to appear online or maybe the DVD of the tour.

[Reggie29]

Fair enough EP but you didn't really answer the questions.

[Mangani]

Well I don't go to concerts much anymore. Probably just 3 in the last 5 years. Nobody I want to see except once in a blue moon but from what I hear I think they are way too high. There have been some I thought "hmmmm I wouldn't mind seeing them" but the prices are way too high. Plus where I live nobody of note comes near except for the Isle of Wight Festival but that's like £150 (that's British pounds) for the 3 day event....and that's just for standing in a field.

[Kiwi_Zep_Fan87]

Personally, I couldn't be bothered going to concerts! The ticket prices here in New Zealand are way too high! I have yet to see a concert ticket for a price less than NZ $ 98! Besides, the problem also lies in the fact that where I live, only major league bands like U2 (for instance) seem to make it here and come to huge arenas like the Vector Arena here in Auckland and there are quite a few indie bands that I would love to see live, like "Graveyard" and "Radio Moscow" because a friend of mine from the United States had to pay a mere US $ 7 to go see "Radio Moscow", who by the way were playing in this small club down town! I love it when bands play at small venues. You can see what's going on and it's not that crowded and the setting is way more intimate! But I am not quite sure whether bands like "Graveyard" and "Radio Moscow" will ever make it to New Zealand! *Sigh!

I think a reasonable price for concert tickets is anything from NZ $ 50 to NZ $ 90 (I know I voted for $ 50 to $100, but I can afford NZ $ 90 and not NZ $ 100! )

My advice to myself is : "Stop complaining. Shut the fuck up and stick to buying CDs which are within NZ $ 25 range". Much safer on the pockets, if you ask me!

[Electrophile]

Fair enough EP but you didn't really answer the questions.

What are your thoughts on current ticket prices? -- They're fine. You pay them if can, you don't if you can't. If I really want to see an artist, I'll scrimp and save until I can afford to go. It's the same thing I do if there's something I really want, that's not in my family's budget.

Do they compare with what you've paid in the past in relation to the percentage of the cost of the ticket to your weekly income? -- I don't remember the exact ticket prices I've spent, nor do I remember what my weekly budget was for the week I either paid for the ticket or the week of the actual show. I can tell you that I've paid roughly the same for all the tickets I've bought, as I like the best seat I can get, rather than just any seat. If I'm going to, I want to sit somewhere where the artist doesn't look like an ant. I just save a little more if that's what I want.

What have paid and which bands were they? -- Again, I don't remember the exact prices and I'm not digging out the ticket stubs to list them, but I've seen Springsteen more than a few times (and paid a pretty penny for the privilege), Beck, Madonna, Christina Aguilera/Justin Timberlake, NSYNC, and probably some more that I'm forgetting right now. If I had to do a rough guesstimate, I'd say more than $100 for each ticket. I don't complain about that though, because I willingly spend it.

[ally]

Like you Reggie, I remember a ticket being about double the average hourly wage for a young working person and I think those prices were fair as compared to today's extortion

Electro.....As far as the artists not having any control overticket prices...I don't know about that ! I have to go back 12yrs for a good comparison but I seem to remember paying a top price of about $50-60 for tickets to see Page & Plant on their 1998 tour stop in Vancouver and I remember thinking that the price was more than fair. The Eagles and the Stones both toured that year and ticket prices were much much higher. The Eagles in around $100.. especially !!! With P&P tickets being so reasonable ,it allowed me to take my son's and two of their cousins to the show . Something I could not have done with the other two acts mentioned.

[Jahfin]

Like you Reggie, I remember a ticket being about double the average hourly wage for a young working person and I think those prices were fair as compared to today's extortion

Electro.....As far as the artists not having any control overticket prices...I don't know about that ! I have to go back 12yrs for a good comparison but I seem to remember paying a top price of about $50-60 for tickets to see Page & Plant on their 1998 tour stop in Vancouver and I remember thinking that the price was more than fair. The Eagles and the Stones both toured that year and ticket prices were much much higher. The Eagles in around $100.. especially !!! With P&P tickets being so reasonable ,it allowed me to take my son's and two of their cousins to the show . Something I could not have done with the other two acts mentioned.

The Eagles started the whole $100 a ticket thing. Page & Plant kept their ticket prices down as a direct response to the Eagles $100 ticket prices. I paid something like $35 to see Page & Plant at the Omni in Atlanta and that was for seats in the 14th row. I saw the Stones around the same time period, also for $35 a ticket but that was from the stands at Carter-Finley in Raleigh.

[Electrophile]

Electro.....As far as the artists not having any control overticket prices...I don't know about that ! I have to go back 12yrs for a good comparison but I seem to remember paying a top price of about $50-60 for tickets to see Page & Plant on their 1998 tour stop in Vancouver and I remember thinking that the price was more than fair. The Eagles and the Stones both toured that year and ticket prices were much much higher. The Eagles in around $100.. especially !!! With P&P tickets being so reasonable ,it allowed me to take my son's and two of their cousins to the show . Something I could not have done with the other two acts mentioned.

I personally don't think the artist goes into their manager or record label head's office and says "I demand my ticket prices be set at no cheaper than $100." I actually don't know who is responsible for the ticket prices being set at the levels/intervals they are, but what I do know is that fans have the option of paying it not paying it. Does it suck when you want to see someone but the prices are too much for your budget? Yes, I've been there several times myself. However I don't get mad at the artist for having ticket prices I can't afford at that time. Whoever IS responsible for the prices sets them at a range that artist can command. No one is going to pay $100 a pop to see Justin Bieber. His fan base/target demographic cannot afford tickets that expensive. Now what about Bruce Springsteen, Eagles or U2? Their target demographic has the discretionary income to pay the ticket prices IF they want to.

My friend back when we were in college saw Paul McCartney at Philips Arena in Atlanta and payed over $200 just for her ticket, and that wasn't counting the other tickets in her party. Was that too expensive? In my opinion yes, but it was Paul McCartney. People will spend lots of money to see someone of his caliber on stage. I saw David Gilmour at the Rosemont Theater back in 2006, and my ticket was I think, a little over $60. I'd have to pull out my ticket stub to verify, but that sounds about right. This was a 4400-seat theater and someone like him could have easily played the United Center and charged twice as much, but he wanted smaller venues, and the ticket prices were then scaled back to match that. Now, would I have payed the doubled price to see him at the United Center? Hell yes. To me, he's worth that money. Even if he only went on stage, said his name, then walked off stage.

I can understand when people say that ticket prices are too expensive, because compared to when some of you who are a bit older than me when to rock concerts, they most definitely are. But those were the prices set for that artist, in that venue, at that time and it's no different now.

[ally]

The Eagles started the whole $100 a ticket thing. Page & Plant kept their ticket prices down as a direct response to the Eagles $100 ticket prices. I paid something like $35 to see Page & Plant at the Omni in Atlanta and that was for seats in the 14th row. I saw the Stones around the same time period, also for $35 a ticket but that was from the stands at Carter-Finley in Raleigh.

And a good direct response it was ! We are used to paying a little more for tickets in the great white north..exchange rates etc.. but I was plesantly suprised with the price. They easilly could have charged much more and still sold out.

Overall though, it just seems to be a case of who the artist is and what venue they are playing in. We've been fortunate in recent years to have had some great acts play some of our smaller venues and when they do, you expect to pay more for the priviledge. I can live with that but when they are playing big arena's and stadiums.... . Mind you, people pay the price so I suppose there is no incentive for bands to keep their ticket prices in the reasonable range

[Jahfin]

Mind you, people pay the price so I suppose there is no incentive for bands to keep their ticket prices in the reasonable range

When Pearl Jam spearheaded their campaign against Ticketmaster, they weren't just taking a stand against them as a monopoly, it was also an effort to keep ticket prices down. In those days everyone from Green Day to the Black Crowes also made a very conscientious effort to keep ticket prices at a very reasonable and affordable rate for their fans. Goes to show there are actually some artists that truly care for and try to look out for their fans. People complain about U2 but what's always left out is that their ticket prices were tiered on this last tour so that everyone could afford to go. For their show here (Carter-Finley Stadium in Raleigh), ticket prices started at $30 but fans could potentially spend up to $250, depending upon where they wanted to sit.

[Electrophile]

Isn't that usually how it works for most bands, though? The closer to the stage you sit, the more expensive that ticket is. If you sit way back in the nose bleed section, you're obviously going to be paying less than someone who is sitting in the lower level or on the floor. It doesn't matter what artist you're there to see, whether it's Roger Waters or Miley Cyrus. I've never been to a concert where it's been one flat ticket price regardless of where your seat is located.

[manderlyh]

Since I live in Boise, Idaho, not too bands I'm interested come my way. The closest larger city is Salt Lake, which never gets big-name tour dates either. In order for me to go see bands I want to see, I have to pay a pretty penny for tickets, then travel to Seattle, Portland, California to see bands.

I think the Stones tickets in 2006 were about $150 each, if I remember correctly. (Boise tour date)

Therefore, I hate paying a lot for tickets because I have to pay for hotel, airline tickets/gas, etc. It becomes a $300-600 trip just to see the artist. This also means I don't go to big name gigs often, though I'd love to be able to go more.

If I lived in a larger city, I wouldn't worry about the ticket cost so much becuase I'd be able to go and come home easily.

The last trip I took for a gig was to Lake Tahoe to see Robert Plant/Alison Krauss.

So really, my biggest issue is that Boise isn't big enough for big names to come on tour!

[planted]

I will pay whatever I can afford to pay. Period.

[Virginia]

Isn't that usually how it works for most bands, though? The closer to the stage you sit, the more expensive that ticket is. If you sit way back in the nose bleed section, you're obviously going to be paying less than someone who is sitting in the lower level or on the floor. It doesn't matter what artist you're there to see, whether it's Roger Waters or Miley Cyrus. I've never been to a concert where it's been one flat ticket price regardless of where your seat is located.

I am pretty sure that the concerts I saw in the 70s/early to mid 80s had either general admission, or you bought a "Floor" ticket and rushed the stage/stood on the floor (vs a specific row/seat in the stands). These were smaller venues in Virginia though; not major arenas. I've also seen several concerts in small university gyms, auditoriums or college town bars where I'm pretty sure it was just general admission (UB40, 10,000 Maniacs, the Bangles, Peter Frampton). For all concerts we've seen since the early 00s, we've bought specific seats, whether for the floor or the upper levels.

[ally]

Isn't that usually how it works for most bands, though? The closer to the stage you sit, the more expensive that ticket is. If you sit way back in the nose bleed section, you're obviously going to be paying less than someone who is sitting in the lower level or on the floor. It doesn't matter what artist you're there to see, whether it's Roger Waters or Miley Cyrus. I've never been to a concert where it's been one flat ticket price regardless of where your seat is located.

Outside of the small venues there was a time in Vancouver where it was festival seating for just about every concert but that's long gone and has been since The Who tragedy in Cinncinati. Mind you, my first Zeppelin concert in 1970 was reserved seating but the difference in prices from front of stage to the nose bleeds was only about $2 .That was a fair bit of money in those day's but nothing like the price gap that exists today. The way I look at it, if a person is working with a steady income then they shouldn't be forced to choose between one concert or another because the ticket prices are too high

[Jahfin]

Isn't that usually how it works for most bands, though?

Yes, it is. At least these days. My point was, people complain about the high ticket prices at these shows but usually neglect to mention that you don't have to pay the highest price (which is usually the one they mention). I saw U2 from the stands at Carter-Finley in Raleigh last year and have no complaints. The concert was such a spectacle (in a good way) that I didn't feel like I was missing out on anything. The Stones are also good at giving you your money's worth when it comes to putting on these large scale type of concerts.

[redrum]

Ahhh...Bring back the good 'ol days of the Fillmore, Winterland and Avalon ballroom when you could see 3 bands for $3.50.

When I saw tickets for the Rolling Stones a couple years back going for $4500 on a ticket site, I just thought 'Go fuck yourselves!'

[ninelives]

Interesting article on the subject:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101227/ap_en_mu/us_concert_ticket_prices

[ally]

Interesting article on the subject:

http://news.yahoo.co...t_ticket_prices

Good article !

Big productions cost big bucks other's, not so much . In some way's, I guess we are the victims of our own expectations.

I'm with ya Redrum. Nothing like the old triple bills

Liz, with you being so young, clearly talk of festival seating and the likes is something that you would never have experienced so don't take it as a critisism. While us older posters can remember those day's you young lady have youth on your side...wanna trade

[Electrophile]

Good article !

Big productions cost big bucks other's, not so much . In some way's, I guess we are the victims of our own expectations.

I'm with ya Redrum. Nothing like the old triple bills

Liz, with you being so young, clearly talk of festival seating and the likes is something that you would never have experienced so don't take it as a critisism. While us older posters can remember those day's you young lady have youth on your side...wanna trade

I haven't experienced festival seating, but I have heard of it, even independent of what happened at the Who concert in 1979. That said, I've been to several concerts where there was general admission on the floor, and basically the earlier you got in line, the better position in front of the stage you were. I've never opted for that, because there's no way in heck I'm standing up for 3 straight hours. The plate in my left knee would rip out of my leg and walk home in protest.