Ticket pricing

Weston1283

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

At the same time, Pearl Jam has backed themselves into this corner by fighting expansive tickets in the past. It is what it is.

I hope when I turn 50 that people won't hold what I did at age 30 against me

I don't think it's fair at all to hold the previous ticket wars of the band against them. Pearl Jam shows being priced at $75-80 bucks a ticket is already an incredible move by the band. Times are different, and like someone said before, a majority of the fan base in 2017 is 40 year olds with jobs and disposable income. They're not fighting to get college kids into shows anymore.

Spiritual_Chaos

Weston1283 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

At the same time, Pearl Jam has backed themselves into this corner by fighting expansive tickets in the past. It is what it is.

I hope when I turn 50 that people won't hold what I did at age 30 against me

Not sitting in congress and speaking out, helps with that

Merkin Baller

helplessdancer said:

helplessdancer said:

texasistheSTEVEN said:

In London £100 gig tickets are very rare, I think this is the part that people are overlooking.
Big artists in big venues, big artists in small venues, mid level bands in mid levels venues, it's very very rare that £100 is the norm.
Sting is playing the same venue as EV and it's £60.00

so sting and ed are playing the exact same venue the price is 40 pounds/euros different. i see that as a major point that's hard to get behind ed and his promoter on.

bump for anyone who can explain this to me.

Well, Sting has a residence and records in London, correct? He considers it home, does he not? I might think playing in a city where an artists resides (even part time) may be a factor. Having all your gear & equipment there sure as hell helps. Do you think he has a local crew, or brings them from the states?

Why is the starting price for Sting tickets at his Boston show $155 USD, but down the road in CT they are starting @ $75.00?

Weston1283

drakeheuer14 said:

Also, lets say these shows sold out at a lower price.. people would be happy to find and then pay these current prices on the secondary market it seems

Then people would just complain about the band not doing a better job of saving seats for the "true fans".

I don't think the band is perfect, but often times with ticketing, it's a no-win situation for them

buck502000

Taking flippers out of the equation

texasistheSTEVEN

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

As I said earlier

"In London £100 gig tickets are very rare, I think this is the part that people are overlooking.

Big artists in big venues, big artists in small venues, mid level bands in mid levels venues, it's very very rare that £100 is the norm.
Sting is playing the same venue as EV and it's £60.00"

now $100.00 may be the normal but £100.00 is not the normal. It is far from normal here, in fact it is well above pretty much every other concert in London, be that huge stadium or mid sized show.

You cannot compare the dollar to the pound as the economic situations of both countries are very much at odds.

texasistheSTEVEN

buck502000 said:

Taking flippers out of the equation

Its giving more money to flippers.

A £50 show becomes a £100/£150 ticket on secondary market. A £100 show becomes a £200/300 show on secondary market.

It's not doing anything to stop flippers.

If EV wanted to stop flippers he would do what other artists have done and you would have to show ID to gain entry to the gig with the name on the tickets.

100 Pacer

my2hands said:

mrk2 said:

London is about 3600 seated capacity. Berlin, Amsterdam, Sicily about 5000 each. Antwerpen about 7000 (not quite sure, over 8000 concert capacity but that includes standing, which is now not used), Dublin 9000 all seated.

So the smallest is 3600 and the rest is 5000-13,000+?

That kind of sucks because I think he really shines in smaller intimate venues... hopefully when he comes to the states again he stays in the smaller 2,500 seaters

Looking back at the 4 shows I attended in 2008: Centre for the Performing Arts in Vancouver is a little over 1,800 capacity and Massey Hall in Toronto is a little over 2,500 capacity. The smaller venues definitely make for a more intimate and appropriate environment for the material being performed.

The Greek Theatre in Taromina looks really enticing but there's no way I could make it work. Good luck to those trying for that venue and others on tour.

icemanap

texasistheSTEVEN said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

As I said earlier

"In London £100 gig tickets are very rare, I think this is the part that people are overlooking.

Big artists in big venues, big artists in small venues, mid level bands in mid levels venues, it's very very rare that £100 is the norm.
Sting is playing the same venue as EV and it's £60.00"

now $100.00 may be the normal but £100.00 is not the normal. It is far from normal here, in fact it is well above pretty much every other concert in London, be that huge stadium or mid sized show.

You cannot compare the dollar to the pound as the economic situations of both countries are very much at odds.

Agree. I've not known of an acoustic show in London to be these prices. Yes, big arena gigs with more pyro, Axl (!) and big screens are up to this price but very rarely. I think many people are looking at this with their Pearl Jam tinted glasses on. The fact of the matter is it is far higher than what the UK market pays for tickets and I simply can't justify it.

kevtic

Weston1283 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

At the same time, Pearl Jam has backed themselves into this corner by fighting expansive tickets in the past. It is what it is.

I hope when I turn 50 that people won't hold what I did at age 30 against me

I don't think it's fair at all to hold the previous ticket wars of the band against them. Pearl Jam shows being priced at $75-80 bucks a ticket is already an incredible move by the band. Times are different, and like someone said before, a majority of the fan base in 2017 is 40 year olds with jobs and disposable income. They're not fighting to get college kids into shows anymore.

Does the majority of the fan base have disposable income? how do you come to that conclusion or are you guessing? Just because you are 40 doesn't mean you have disposable income especially not in the current climate.

And even if it was true why does that make it any more acceptable?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Not one whiner here has posted their profession and spoke to how they purposely keep the price of their service to a minimum so their consumer base isn't charged too much. They're all hypocrites. They seek to hold Ed to the highest standard, yet pursue as much profit as they can in their own line of work thinking that's different.

Even when you explain the very basic fact that his ticket prices are on par with other performers... they basically say he's not worth as much as those performers. Well hey man... it's simple then... don't go if you think he's not worth it. But for gawds sakes... keep your dignity versus look like an adult stomping his feet and pouting in a virtual kind of way.

bootlegger10

Weston1283 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

At the same time, Pearl Jam has backed themselves into this corner by fighting expansive tickets in the past. It is what it is.

I hope when I turn 50 that people won't hold what I did at age 30 against me

I don't think it's fair at all to hold the previous ticket wars of the band against them. Pearl Jam shows being priced at $75-80 bucks a ticket is already an incredible move by the band. Times are different, and like someone said before, a majority of the fan base in 2017 is 40 year olds with jobs and disposable income. They're not fighting to get college kids into shows anymore.

I think you can hold that against them. I know the music industry has changed but they weren't arguing against high ticket prices in 1995 because they could make money on CD's and afford to charge less, but because of principal and fighting for their fans who couldn't afford tickets. It had nothing to do with collecting enough revenue from all sources.

That is fine though. I was proud for a long time to wear Pearl Jam shirts and hang posters because of the stands they took and issues they fought for even if I disagreed. Now in 2017 they are more like a lot of their contemporaries (still incredibly charitable and good people) and I look at all the collecting I did and it just doesn't mean that much to me like it used to even a few years ago. Now the posters on the wall are hung up to document a trip or time spent with other friends versus versus promoting a band's ideals. I just don't think of the band Pearl Jam the same as I used to. Still love their concerts and the music.

I hope some of that makes sense.

texasistheSTEVEN

icemanap said:

texasistheSTEVEN said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

As I said earlier

"In London £100 gig tickets are very rare, I think this is the part that people are overlooking.

Big artists in big venues, big artists in small venues, mid level bands in mid levels venues, it's very very rare that £100 is the norm.
Sting is playing the same venue as EV and it's £60.00"

now $100.00 may be the normal but £100.00 is not the normal. It is far from normal here, in fact it is well above pretty much every other concert in London, be that huge stadium or mid sized show.

You cannot compare the dollar to the pound as the economic situations of both countries are very much at odds.

Agree. I've not known of an acoustic show in London to be these prices. Yes, big arena gigs with more pyro, Axl (!) and big screens are up to this price but very rarely. I think many people are looking at this with their Pearl Jam tinted glasses on. The fact of the matter is it is far higher than what the UK market pays for tickets and I simply can't justify it.

Thats exactly it.
It's above the price of ANY OTHER SHOWS in London.
I think thats where the PJ defenders are missing the point entirely.

It's not that its a certain figure compared to another currency, it's the fact that these tickets are joint or above any other concert in the capital.

tweedyfanjen

I've only paid $100/ticket once and that was for Temple of the Dog which I felt was a special show. I honestly wouldn't pay that much to see Eddie solo, but I probably would to see Stone because that would be much more rare. But I'm not going to judge what other people spend their money on. I have enough people in my life who don't understand my music obsession and why I spend so much time and money going to shows.

texasistheSTEVEN

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Not one whiner here has posted their profession and spoke to how they purposely keep the price of their service to a minimum so their consumer base isn't charged too much. They're all hypocrites. They seek to hold Ed to the highest standard, yet pursue as much profit as they can in their own line of work thinking that's different.

Even when you explain the very basic fact that his ticket prices are on par with other performers... they basically say he's not worth as much as those performers. Well hey man... it's simple then... don't go if you think he's not worth it. But for gawds sakes... keep your dignity versus look like an adult stomping his feet and pouting in a virtual kind of way.

In the work I do the service offered is free at the point of use and is paid for by advertisers. What that has to with Eddie Vedder is entriely moot.

Here is a nice example for you. I go to a lot of football matches in London, the ticket prices there are held firm and will go up slightly each season. In an effort to keep the fan base happy, onside and to get young people to come to the matches, games in the cup or european matches are prices at half that of league games. Sometimes more. In that instance they are building good relations with the fans and ensuring that young people who are the next generation of supporter has a chance to see the team play regardless of economic background.

They could charge double, triple the price and the 35,000 stadium would be full each week. But they choose not to. Just because there is an opportunity to exploit people it doesn't mean you have to take it.

I feel like I have to shout here as the message isn't getting through:
HIS TICKETS AREN'T THE SAME PRICE AS OTHER PERFORMERS IN LONDON
HIS TICKETS ARE AMONGST THE HIGHEST CONCERT TICKETS CURRENTLY IN LONDON
HE HAS DOUBLED THE PRICE OF THE TICKET FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK

And you are coming across as a really negative money driven republican btw.

Weston1283

bootlegger10 said:

Weston1283 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

At the same time, Pearl Jam has backed themselves into this corner by fighting expansive tickets in the past. It is what it is.

I hope when I turn 50 that people won't hold what I did at age 30 against me

I don't think it's fair at all to hold the previous ticket wars of the band against them. Pearl Jam shows being priced at $75-80 bucks a ticket is already an incredible move by the band. Times are different, and like someone said before, a majority of the fan base in 2017 is 40 year olds with jobs and disposable income. They're not fighting to get college kids into shows anymore.

I think you can hold that against them. I know the music industry has changed but they weren't arguing against high ticket prices in 1995 because they could make money on CD's and afford to charge less, but because of principal and fighting for their fans who couldn't afford tickets. It had nothing to do with collecting enough revenue from all sources.

That is fine though. I was proud for a long time to wear Pearl Jam shirts and hang posters because of the stands they took and issues they fought for even if I disagreed. Now in 2017 they are more like a lot of their contemporaries (still incredibly charitable and good people) and I look at all the collecting I did and it just doesn't mean that much to me like it used to even a few years ago. Now the posters on the wall are hung up to document a trip or time spent with other friends versus versus promoting a band's ideals. I just don't think of the band Pearl Jam the same as I used to. Still love their concerts and the music.

I hope some of that makes sense.

I can understand that. I guess I'm just different in the fact that I've never liked a band because of their stances on things. I'm just about the music. I disagree with the political stance of the band on a regular basis, but it would be absolutely foolish to let that get in the way of the incredible music they create and shows they put on, and everything their music does for me in my life.

Weston1283

kevtic said:

Weston1283 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

At the same time, Pearl Jam has backed themselves into this corner by fighting expansive tickets in the past. It is what it is.

I hope when I turn 50 that people won't hold what I did at age 30 against me

I don't think it's fair at all to hold the previous ticket wars of the band against them. Pearl Jam shows being priced at $75-80 bucks a ticket is already an incredible move by the band. Times are different, and like someone said before, a majority of the fan base in 2017 is 40 year olds with jobs and disposable income. They're not fighting to get college kids into shows anymore.

Does the majority of the fan base have disposable income? how do you come to that conclusion or are you guessing? Just because you are 40 doesn't mean you have disposable income especially not in the current climate.

And even if it was true why does that make it any more acceptable?

I'm assuming that based on the number of sold out shows the band has had over the last few years, and how high the price has gone in the secondary market due to demand.

I assume the Average fan has a disposable income when there is a 3 hour wait for a $35 t shirt and poster.

David Brooks

60/40 split with Ed and Glen... been to 10 Ev shows both Liam and Glen... worth every penny... a lot of "Thieves of Silence" in this thread. If you're local go to a show, this is your opportunity!

JimmyV

If these tickets were overpriced they wouldn't sell. We'll see what happens but I'm betting near every single ticket will sell. By definition then they cannot be overpriced. This band has spent more than two decades building its reputation as an incredible live act. Not every band has done that. Eddie is the front man. He's charging a price he knows he can get. I personally don't need any more explanation or rationalization than that. I'm not apologizing for Eddie or making excuses for Eddie because needs me to do neither. This is the price. Pay it or don't. I'm not in Europe but if I were I would to see him with Glen again. The 2012 shows in Florida were that good.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

texasistheSTEVEN said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Not one whiner here has posted their profession and spoke to how they purposely keep the price of their service to a minimum so their consumer base isn't charged too much. They're all hypocrites. They seek to hold Ed to the highest standard, yet pursue as much profit as they can in their own line of work thinking that's different.

Even when you explain the very basic fact that his ticket prices are on par with other performers... they basically say he's not worth as much as those performers. Well hey man... it's simple then... don't go if you think he's not worth it. But for gawds sakes... keep your dignity versus look like an adult stomping his feet and pouting in a virtual kind of way.

In the work I do the service offered is free at the point of use and is paid for by advertisers. What that has to with Eddie Vedder is entriely moot.

Here is a nice example for you. I go to a lot of football matches in London, the ticket prices there are held firm and will go up slightly each season. In an effort to keep the fan base happy, onside and to get young people to come to the matches, games in the cup or european matches are prices at half that of league games. Sometimes more. In that instance they are building good relations with the fans and ensuring that young people who are the next generation of supporter has a chance to see the team play regardless of economic background.

They could charge double, triple the price and the 35,000 stadium would be full each week. But they choose not to. Just because there is an opportunity to exploit people it doesn't mean you have to take it.

I feel like I have to shout here as the message isn't getting through:
HIS TICKETS AREN'T THE SAME PRICE AS OTHER PERFORMERS IN LONDON
HIS TICKETS ARE AMONGST THE HIGHEST CONCERT TICKETS CURRENTLY IN LONDON
HE HAS DOUBLED THE PRICE OF THE TICKET FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK

And you are coming across as a really negative money driven republican btw.

Ed's timeline is somewhat finite- he doesn't compare to a sports organization that yields its product every year until the next ice age.

And your vague reference to what you do hasn't absolved you of anything: if advertisers have paid for your services... ultimately the consumers have provided that money that you enjoy.

I'm not arguing that the ticket prices aren't high. I'm just saying that tarring and feathering Ed for the prices set is poor. If the venues sell out, then his management team did a good job understanding the market. I passed on the Eagles and I passed on Fleetwood Mac. I'm currently passing on Roger Waters. I'd like to go to these shows, but I balked at the price- my choice. I did not spaz out and whine about it.

Mike Trout isn't going to sign for a couple million a year out of principle. He is going to sign for what his talents demand. Expecting him to play for less so tickets can be cheaper for people to attend games and they can buy more beer and nachos with the extra money is ridiculous.

And I'm not a money driven republican. I'm a Canadian public school teacher. And a realist.

bootlegger10

Weston1283 said:

bootlegger10 said:

Weston1283 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Weston1283 said:

I just don't think $103 USD or whatever the conversion is, is that much for a concert in 2017. When a band comes to town, I'm pleasantly surprised if I can get a good seat for under 100. It's just the way it is. Unless it is a really new band, a 100+ dollar ticket is pretty normal. Attending a concert is a privledge not a right.

I'm not saying anyone here does it, but it amazes me when some of my own friends will say they have no money or can't afford something, but then spend 10-15 bucks on a drink at a bar on a regular basis or pay 20 bucks for a "nice" burger and fries. It's about choices.

At the same time, Pearl Jam has backed themselves into this corner by fighting expansive tickets in the past. It is what it is.

I hope when I turn 50 that people won't hold what I did at age 30 against me

I don't think it's fair at all to hold the previous ticket wars of the band against them. Pearl Jam shows being priced at $75-80 bucks a ticket is already an incredible move by the band. Times are different, and like someone said before, a majority of the fan base in 2017 is 40 year olds with jobs and disposable income. They're not fighting to get college kids into shows anymore.

I think you can hold that against them. I know the music industry has changed but they weren't arguing against high ticket prices in 1995 because they could make money on CD's and afford to charge less, but because of principal and fighting for their fans who couldn't afford tickets. It had nothing to do with collecting enough revenue from all sources.

That is fine though. I was proud for a long time to wear Pearl Jam shirts and hang posters because of the stands they took and issues they fought for even if I disagreed. Now in 2017 they are more like a lot of their contemporaries (still incredibly charitable and good people) and I look at all the collecting I did and it just doesn't mean that much to me like it used to even a few years ago. Now the posters on the wall are hung up to document a trip or time spent with other friends versus versus promoting a band's ideals. I just don't think of the band Pearl Jam the same as I used to. Still love their concerts and the music.

I hope some of that makes sense.

I can understand that. I guess I'm just different in the fact that I've never liked a band because of their stances on things. I'm just about the music. I disagree with the political stance of the band on a regular basis, but it would be absolutely foolish to let that get in the way of the incredible music they create and shows they put on, and everything their music does for me in my life.

Yeah. Their integrity and stances even when I disagreed were a big reason in why they were my number one band, collect all the merch, go to all the shows, etc... versus falling in the category of other bands where I loved the music almost as much as Pearl Jam but didn't have the same connection that made me want to buy the vinyl, by their shirts, etc...

see_the_world

helplessdancer said:

helplessdancer said:

texasistheSTEVEN said:

In London £100 gig tickets are very rare, I think this is the part that people are overlooking.
Big artists in big venues, big artists in small venues, mid level bands in mid levels venues, it's very very rare that £100 is the norm.
Sting is playing the same venue as EV and it's £60.00

so sting and ed are playing the exact same venue the price is 40 pounds/euros different. i see that as a major point that's hard to get behind ed and his promoter on.

bump for anyone who can explain this to me.

Having been initially surprised at the Ten Club prices, on Ticketmaster it looks as though when tickets go on general sale they will be priced from around £65 up to £100. I guess by offering £100 tickets the club is offering some of the 'best seats' to members, but for a couple of the other shows they are offering tickets at different price points so it's a shame they aren't for London. I think £100 will be too rich for my blood, but I might try for the 'cheap' seats on Friday.

Sting is having a standing area in the stalls, which maybe helps keep prices down at the front (a standing ticket is £68). That said, the most expensive seated tickets appear to have a face value of £185. If Eddie was charging that much we'd really have something to complain about!

Having said all that, the lack of respect afforded to some on here by others for admitting they would find £100 a struggle is pretty depressing. It's a lot of money if you don't have much. Bully for you if you do, but it doesn't make you a better person.

CantKeepmedown

I wouldn't mind paying $100/ticket if that's all that was involved (not including a few beers/food). But adding in cost of travel/hotels makes it difficult. If he does a US tour and comes to Boston, I'll probably bite the bullet and go, but only because i can drive home afterwards. I wouldn't travel to see him. And you really don't need to see multiple shows, IMO.

I spent $45 on a Wilco ticket for this summer, in a cool little outdoor venue on the water. That'll quench my thirst as I wait for some (hopeful) PJ news.

Wma31394

JimmyV said:

If these tickets were overpriced they wouldn't sell. We'll see what happens but I'm betting near every single ticket will sell. By definition then they cannot be overpriced. This band has spent more than two decades building its reputation as an incredible live act. Not every band has done that. Eddie is the front man. He's charging a price he knows he can get. I personally don't need any more explanation or rationalization than that. I'm not apologizing for Eddie or making excuses for Eddie because needs me to do neither. This is the price. Pay it or don't. I'm not in Europe but if I were I would to see him with Glen again. The 2012 shows in Florida were that good.

Dats right..dats right..

texasistheSTEVEN

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

texasistheSTEVEN said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Not one whiner here has posted their profession and spoke to how they purposely keep the price of their service to a minimum so their consumer base isn't charged too much. They're all hypocrites. They seek to hold Ed to the highest standard, yet pursue as much profit as they can in their own line of work thinking that's different.

Even when you explain the very basic fact that his ticket prices are on par with other performers... they basically say he's not worth as much as those performers. Well hey man... it's simple then... don't go if you think he's not worth it. But for gawds sakes... keep your dignity versus look like an adult stomping his feet and pouting in a virtual kind of way.

In the work I do the service offered is free at the point of use and is paid for by advertisers. What that has to with Eddie Vedder is entriely moot.

Here is a nice example for you. I go to a lot of football matches in London, the ticket prices there are held firm and will go up slightly each season. In an effort to keep the fan base happy, onside and to get young people to come to the matches, games in the cup or european matches are prices at half that of league games. Sometimes more. In that instance they are building good relations with the fans and ensuring that young people who are the next generation of supporter has a chance to see the team play regardless of economic background.

They could charge double, triple the price and the 35,000 stadium would be full each week. But they choose not to. Just because there is an opportunity to exploit people it doesn't mean you have to take it.

I feel like I have to shout here as the message isn't getting through:
HIS TICKETS AREN'T THE SAME PRICE AS OTHER PERFORMERS IN LONDON
HIS TICKETS ARE AMONGST THE HIGHEST CONCERT TICKETS CURRENTLY IN LONDON
HE HAS DOUBLED THE PRICE OF THE TICKET FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK

And you are coming across as a really negative money driven republican btw.

Ed's timeline is somewhat finite- he doesn't compare to a sports organization that yields its product every year until the next ice age.

And your vague reference to what you do hasn't absolved you of anything: if advertisers have paid for your services... ultimately the consumers have provided that money that you enjoy.

I'm not arguing that the ticket prices aren't high. I'm just saying that tarring and feathering Ed for the prices set is poor. If the venues sell out, then his management team did a good job understanding the market. I passed on the Eagles and I passed on Fleetwood Mac. I'm currently passing on Roger Waters. I'd like to go to these shows, but I balked at the price- my choice. I did not spaz out and whine about it.

Mike Trout isn't going to sign for a couple million a year out of principle. He is going to sign for what his talents demand. Expecting him to play for less so tickets can be cheaper for people to attend games and they can buy more beer and nachos with the extra money is ridiculous.

And I'm not a money driven republican. I'm a Canadian public school teacher. And a realist.

I don't need to be absolved of anything thanks Jesus.

I am still at a loss as to how my career links to a professional musicians working practise......

The simple fact is he has charged in the upper price bracket for a concert that shouldn't be priced as such. And thats not stomping my feet as an adult, it's pointing out that an artist who supposedly holds sensibly priced tickets throughout his career as a bastion of good practise can suddenly go against that. If it's not him then it's his team or his promoter or whoever.

Also if you are a teacher and you use the word "spaz" you really need to have a good hard look at yourself.

texasistheSTEVEN

CantKeepmedown said:

I wouldn't mind paying $100/ticket if that's all that was involved (not including a few beers/food). But adding in cost of travel/hotels makes it difficult. If he does a US tour and comes to Boston, I'll probably bite the bullet and go, but only because i can drive home afterwards. I wouldn't travel to see him. And you really don't need to see multiple shows, IMO.

I spent $45 on a Wilco ticket for this summer, in a cool little outdoor venue on the water. That'll quench my thirst as I wait for some (hopeful) PJ news.

It's not $100 a ticket................
It's £100

Wma31394

Poll?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

texasistheSTEVEN said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

texasistheSTEVEN said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Not one whiner here has posted their profession and spoke to how they purposely keep the price of their service to a minimum so their consumer base isn't charged too much. They're all hypocrites. They seek to hold Ed to the highest standard, yet pursue as much profit as they can in their own line of work thinking that's different.

Even when you explain the very basic fact that his ticket prices are on par with other performers... they basically say he's not worth as much as those performers. Well hey man... it's simple then... don't go if you think he's not worth it. But for gawds sakes... keep your dignity versus look like an adult stomping his feet and pouting in a virtual kind of way.

In the work I do the service offered is free at the point of use and is paid for by advertisers. What that has to with Eddie Vedder is entriely moot.

Here is a nice example for you. I go to a lot of football matches in London, the ticket prices there are held firm and will go up slightly each season. In an effort to keep the fan base happy, onside and to get young people to come to the matches, games in the cup or european matches are prices at half that of league games. Sometimes more. In that instance they are building good relations with the fans and ensuring that young people who are the next generation of supporter has a chance to see the team play regardless of economic background.

They could charge double, triple the price and the 35,000 stadium would be full each week. But they choose not to. Just because there is an opportunity to exploit people it doesn't mean you have to take it.

I feel like I have to shout here as the message isn't getting through:
HIS TICKETS AREN'T THE SAME PRICE AS OTHER PERFORMERS IN LONDON
HIS TICKETS ARE AMONGST THE HIGHEST CONCERT TICKETS CURRENTLY IN LONDON
HE HAS DOUBLED THE PRICE OF THE TICKET FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK

And you are coming across as a really negative money driven republican btw.

Ed's timeline is somewhat finite- he doesn't compare to a sports organization that yields its product every year until the next ice age.

And your vague reference to what you do hasn't absolved you of anything: if advertisers have paid for your services... ultimately the consumers have provided that money that you enjoy.

I'm not arguing that the ticket prices aren't high. I'm just saying that tarring and feathering Ed for the prices set is poor. If the venues sell out, then his management team did a good job understanding the market. I passed on the Eagles and I passed on Fleetwood Mac. I'm currently passing on Roger Waters. I'd like to go to these shows, but I balked at the price- my choice. I did not spaz out and whine about it.

Mike Trout isn't going to sign for a couple million a year out of principle. He is going to sign for what his talents demand. Expecting him to play for less so tickets can be cheaper for people to attend games and they can buy more beer and nachos with the extra money is ridiculous.

And I'm not a money driven republican. I'm a Canadian public school teacher. And a realist.

I don't need to be absolved of anything thanks Jesus.

I am still at a loss as to how my career links to a professional musicians working practise......

The simple fact is he has charged in the upper price bracket for a concert that shouldn't be priced as such. And thats not stomping my feet as an adult, it's pointing out that an artist who supposedly holds sensibly priced tickets throughout his career as a bastion of good practise can suddenly go against that. If it's not him then it's his team or his promoter or whoever.

Also if you are a teacher and you use the word "spaz" you really need to have a good hard look at yourself.

I'm not in front of my class right now. I'm in front of an entitled, spoiled adult.

Have a nice day.

texasistheSTEVEN

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

texasistheSTEVEN said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

texasistheSTEVEN said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Not one whiner here has posted their profession and spoke to how they purposely keep the price of their service to a minimum so their consumer base isn't charged too much. They're all hypocrites. They seek to hold Ed to the highest standard, yet pursue as much profit as they can in their own line of work thinking that's different.

Even when you explain the very basic fact that his ticket prices are on par with other performers... they basically say he's not worth as much as those performers. Well hey man... it's simple then... don't go if you think he's not worth it. But for gawds sakes... keep your dignity versus look like an adult stomping his feet and pouting in a virtual kind of way.

In the work I do the service offered is free at the point of use and is paid for by advertisers. What that has to with Eddie Vedder is entriely moot.

Here is a nice example for you. I go to a lot of football matches in London, the ticket prices there are held firm and will go up slightly each season. In an effort to keep the fan base happy, onside and to get young people to come to the matches, games in the cup or european matches are prices at half that of league games. Sometimes more. In that instance they are building good relations with the fans and ensuring that young people who are the next generation of supporter has a chance to see the team play regardless of economic background.

They could charge double, triple the price and the 35,000 stadium would be full each week. But they choose not to. Just because there is an opportunity to exploit people it doesn't mean you have to take it.

I feel like I have to shout here as the message isn't getting through:
HIS TICKETS AREN'T THE SAME PRICE AS OTHER PERFORMERS IN LONDON
HIS TICKETS ARE AMONGST THE HIGHEST CONCERT TICKETS CURRENTLY IN LONDON
HE HAS DOUBLED THE PRICE OF THE TICKET FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK

And you are coming across as a really negative money driven republican btw.

Ed's timeline is somewhat finite- he doesn't compare to a sports organization that yields its product every year until the next ice age.

And your vague reference to what you do hasn't absolved you of anything: if advertisers have paid for your services... ultimately the consumers have provided that money that you enjoy.

I'm not arguing that the ticket prices aren't high. I'm just saying that tarring and feathering Ed for the prices set is poor. If the venues sell out, then his management team did a good job understanding the market. I passed on the Eagles and I passed on Fleetwood Mac. I'm currently passing on Roger Waters. I'd like to go to these shows, but I balked at the price- my choice. I did not spaz out and whine about it.

Mike Trout isn't going to sign for a couple million a year out of principle. He is going to sign for what his talents demand. Expecting him to play for less so tickets can be cheaper for people to attend games and they can buy more beer and nachos with the extra money is ridiculous.

And I'm not a money driven republican. I'm a Canadian public school teacher. And a realist.

I don't need to be absolved of anything thanks Jesus.

I am still at a loss as to how my career links to a professional musicians working practise......

The simple fact is he has charged in the upper price bracket for a concert that shouldn't be priced as such. And thats not stomping my feet as an adult, it's pointing out that an artist who supposedly holds sensibly priced tickets throughout his career as a bastion of good practise can suddenly go against that. If it's not him then it's his team or his promoter or whoever.

Also if you are a teacher and you use the word "spaz" you really need to have a good hard look at yourself.

I'm not in front of my class right now. I'm in front of an entitled, spoiled adult.

Have a nice day.

Entitled and spoiled because I think a gig is overpriced......Hahahahahahaha

The fact that it's in your vernacular shows the kind of person you are. Bye now

100 Pacer

So it's been shown that £100/ticket is top tier while there are cheaper priced tickets available for public purchase starting at £65? I mean...this is the definition of value-based pricing. If you see a benefit to paying top dollar go right ahead, if you don't you pass on by. Stating that somehow Ed has faltered as an artist/individual because of this pricing structure seems a little far-fetched.