Ticket prices are consistant and fair.

JOEJOEJOE

lowbudgetlush wrote:

Rough math:
$50/ticket
12,000 avg. attendence
10 shows
Gross= 6,000,000
Say they just get 25% That would be 300,000 for a months worth of work per member (excluding boom because he probably takes a smaller cut)

If one makes $50/hour they would gross 102,000/year. That is a decent amount of change for one person.

I am sure that people in third-world countries think that a minimum-wage earner in the U.S. lives like a king...its all relative.

voodoopug

over_bends wrote:

I'm not complaining but when you have fanatics like us $70+ a ticket really adds up, especially when you hit up five or six shows on a tour. All these crappy bands that pay $500 a ticket know that no one will want to come back so they have to milk it for all it's worth. Perhaps we can all save money if Pearl Jam wasn't so damn talented!

Not true. I spent about 11K last tour on the Rolling Stones and I was certainly not alone.

over bends

voodoopug wrote:

Not true. I spent about 11K last tour on the Rolling Stones and I was certainly not alone.

I hope you got a quickie from Keith Richards for that price.

hopethatuchoke

Vedderman23 wrote:

For today's economy, there is nothing wrong with the prices PJ are charging for their shows. If anyone recall one of the recent interviews Ed game in RS, he already hinted that ticket prices would HAVE to be raised due to <b>wear and tear on the body</b>, economy, etc.

What exactly does wear and tear on the body have to do with higher ticket prices? Are you saying touring these days is more taxing for some reason? I don't understand.

voodoopug

over_bends wrote:

I hope you got a quickie from Keith Richards for that price.

I was a bit upset that I was not invited back to the "rattlesnake inn" backstage area, but did have quite a collection of great seats.

digster

mwilmot4 wrote:

This is not true...

Two tickets for Radiohead in WPB are $142.00 ($55+$16X2)

Two tickets for Dave Matthews in Saratoga are $184.00 ($75 +$17X2); That is the charge for all pavillion seating.

Pearl Jam is not using a blanket charge for amphitheatres; the lawn will be cheaper.

I don't get what you're saying; you're proving my point, unless we somehow know that the Pearl Jam tickets are 77 dollars with all additional service charges attached. If that's not the case, and the 77 dollars is the base charge, then it is higher than the highest base charges for Radiohead (55 dollars) Dave Matthews Band (72-75 dollars), and Foo Fighters (45 dollars).

Like I was saying, Pearl Jam's prices are not astronomical; I was saying there were some bands of their stature that are keeping prices cheaper.

L1quid

Does nobody follow the news? I'm sure I'm not the only one watching the value of the USD plummet compared to other currencies. And of course oil (futures) more than doubling in 2-4 years...

While neither of those directly impact the band (well, oil maybe), the indirect effects are assuredly staggering. Cost of supplies (gas, buses, etc), venues upping their rental fee, ensuring carbon credits are where they need to be, etc.

Anyway, ticket prices are directly related to Pearl Jam's insane amount of greed.

The end.

digster

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Do the bands you listed have sponsors that take away some of the cost of putting on a concert?

(Actual curiosity. Don't care to argue. Just bought tickets and am going to buy more so I obviously have no problem with the prices.

Certainly not Radiohead and DMB; I'm not a big fan of Foo Fighters, so I don't know about them.

Vedderlution_Baby

hopethatuchoke wrote:

What exactly does wear and tear on the body have to do with higher ticket prices? Are you saying touring these days is more taxing for some reason? I don't understand.

I imagine doing something when you're in your early twenties is less tiring and stressful than doing that same thing when you're in your forties.

over bends

I think we can all agree it's better than $2000 to see Hanna Montana.

chromiam

over_bends wrote:

I think we can all agree it's better than $2000 to see Hanna Montana.

What Hanna Montana show charged $2000/ticket??? (as the face value)

Kel Varnsen

PilatesBetterman wrote:

BEFORE replying please note that numbers used are for illistrative purposes ONLY:

Yes Pearl Jam could charge less and make gobs of $$$, but what about their own crew, local crews, promoters, venue staff, etc etc etc? 6 guys in a band, at least one tech per band member, 50 security(conservative estimate) 15 local crew, promoters anon. lets's say there's 100 ppl that your 75 dollar ticket needs to pay, that averages to 75 cents from your ticket going to each person involved in making a Pearl Jam show possible, just consider it as "tipping" everyone involved instead of assuming that Pearl Jam is trying to steal your money

On top of that you have the bands management that proabably takes anywhere from 10-20 percent. Plus you have to pay for the venue itself. Not to mention the band members yearly income tax. While the band does well they probably don't get anywhere close to the gross they make off of each concert.

over bends

chromiam wrote:

What Hanna Montana show charged $2000/ticket??? (as the face value)

None haha... it's probably cheaper than Pearl Jam face value. I'm just saying... crazy parents today.

voodoopug

Kel Varnsen wrote:

On top of that you have the bands management that proabably takes anywhere from 10-20 percent. Plus you have to pay for the venue itself. Not to mention the band members yearly income tax. While the band does well they probably don't get anywhere close to the gross they make off of each concert.

And with MSG on this schedule....I'd be surprised if the band will do much more than break even as that venue is head and shoulders above the others as far as rental fees go.

lowbudgetlush

inmytree wrote:

oh my, quite the correlation....are you saying PJ and Exxon are one in the same...?

anyhoo, in regards to gas prices, I to take issue with the manipulation of the supply, i.e., randomly shutting down refinery's to shorten supply, thus driving up gas prices....

The gas companies are not allowed to open new refineries, but that is not the point of the thread.

I just feel that with all they stood for in the past that they wouldnt charge "industry average" prices. I dont have a problem paying $70 for a ticket to a show but i never expected it from Pearl Jam.

All im saying is that they could probably earn a nice living charging a few bucks less for a show.

uglybabo

digster wrote:

I don't get what you're saying; you're proving my point, unless we somehow know that the Pearl Jam tickets are 77 dollars with all additional service charges attached. If that's not the case, and the 77 dollars is the base charge, then it is higher than the highest base charges for Radiohead (55 dollars) Dave Matthews Band (72-75 dollars), and Foo Fighters (45 dollars).

Like I was saying, Pearl Jam's prices are not astronomical; I was saying there were some bands of their stature that are keeping prices cheaper.

Tweeter Center in Boston:
(these are base prices)

Pearl Jam - Reserved: $60; Lawn : $40

Dave Matthews - Reserved: $75; Uncovered Reserved: $65; Lawn: $40

DMB is $10-15 higher for the Pavillion and the same for the lawn.

And since these are Ticketmaster venues the Ten Club has to pay service charges as well, especially if they want to reserve at least 10% of the venue.

inmytree

lowbudgetlush wrote:

The gas companies are not allowed to open new refineries, but that is not the point of the thread.

I just feel that with all they stood for in the past that they wouldnt charge "industry average" prices. I dont have a problem paying $70 for a ticket to a show but i never expected it from Pearl Jam.

All im saying is that they could probably earn a nice living charging a few bucks less for a show.

you're the one who brought Exxon in this, my friend...

and they do "shut down" the current refinery's for "maintenance", thus driving down supply, while demand stays the same, therefore prices go up...

look it up...

and how much is a "few bucks"...? is a "few bucks" 20...? 30....? how much should they charge for tickets? please tell me...

dontloseyourheat

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I imagine doing something when you're in your early twenties is less tiring and stressful than doing that same thing when you're in your forties.

So you are saying that because they are tired of touring, they can charge more? Wouldn't you say that is a pretty good example of Greed?



No one is saying that they don't have a right to charge this much.

It's just that over the last few years, prices are rising much steeper than in the early years and it is very hypocritical given this bands past.


They know that there fanbase is making more money and they are taking advantage of that. Somewhere along the line, they decided to alienate the younger fans or those with less money in order to target those who live a comfortable life. Look at everything we have seen in the past few years. Limited Edition posters, limited edition sweatshirts, limited edition books, socks...freaking SOCKS. Why is everything limited, because they can charge a higher price and the outcome is more money in their pockets.

They are obviously doing a very good job because we all buy everything right away but it's obvious that their views are not the same as they were 15 years ago.

You can justify it any way you want but the bottom line is that Pearl Jam is a buisness and, like any buisness, their goal is to make money.

Kel Varnsen

lowbudgetlush wrote:

I just feel that with all they stood for in the past that they wouldnt charge "industry average" prices. I dont have a problem paying $70 for a ticket to a show but i never expected it from Pearl Jam.

All im saying is that they could probably earn a nice living charging a few bucks less for a show.

But if the industry average is going up, maybe PJ doesn't have a choice but to raise their prices. I mean think of it this way, if another band that is equal to PJ can sell out MSG at 90 bucks a seat, then the venue and all the support staff are going to know that. Just because PJ is charging less for their shows, doesn't mean that the venue, or the security company is going to say "well you are giving your fans a break so we are going to cut you a break to", thats crazy, the venue and the security and the truckers are going to charge PJ just as much as they charge U2 or The Stones. So they have similar overhead costs in many cases, but at the same time their revenue is lower.

And on a second note, so far in this thread no one has posted a price for what they thing is a fair value for tickets.

lowbudgetlush

inmytree wrote:

you're the one who brought Exxon in this, my friend...

and they do "shut down" the current refinery's for "maintenance", thus driving down supply, while demand stays the same, therefore prices go up...

look it up...

and how much is a "few bucks"...? is a "few bucks" 20...? 30....? how much should they charge for tickets? please tell me...

I dont really know how much they should charge for tickets, but i would guess that when they were touring in 1998 & 2000 that they did fairly well. So I would assume one would adjust those tickets prices for inflation, fuel, etc. & come up with a number. Im saying that the number they come up with would not be $70.