Options

Ticket prices. This is not for you (the fans).

12728293032

Comments

  • Options
    PJNBPJNB Posts: 13,018
    mpedone said:
    PJNB said:
    mpedone said:
    PJNB said:
    Get_Right said:
    PJNB said:
    Get_Right said:
    They outsourced the fan club years ago. They sold dog collars. Now they just want to sell tickets as quickly and as easily as possible. Priority never helped get MSG tix. The MSG odds have always been low.
    Of course priority helped get MSG tickets. Just because odds are already low does not mean priority did not make it easier. 


    Tons of people put in for MSG just as trade bait or to flip for a profit. 

    If priority was a thing they would of had to make a choice with putting in for the actual show/shows they wanted to go to or get MSG as a first pick. 



    The odds were always less than 15%. So I think we have about the same chance of winning the lottery. Priority just gave you more information to talk about, it did not increase the likelihood of getting tickets. And no doubt, there are flippers and scalpers in the 10C.
    It did though. I am not even sure what you are trying to say here. Again just because the odds were low already did not mean priority did not help. Also taking priority out made your odds worse due to people just throwing a hail mary since why not they have nothing to lose. If someone threw a hail mary before it just got rejected since it was not a first pick. 


    That 15% you are talking about was always a number shown for general interest of a show and never took priority into account. The true number was always higher than that if you put the show as your first pick. 


    Now if they went back to showing the odds with no priority that 15% would in fact be a true number of your chances. MSG would be lower than that though. 

    It's not quite a binary situation, though, is it? If your top choice is a much lower demand show, why not put MSG as #1? It's not apples-to-apples, but thinking back to the 2018 shows, where Fenway 2 was a 99% chance (and Night 1 wasn't much lower), if I'd really wanted to go to one of the other shows (with much worse odds), I wouldn't have had to put either Fenway as my #1. Further, given the laws, if I'm looking at going to MSG and Philly or somewhere in the northeast outside of NY and CT, MSG is going to be my #1, even if it's not the closest/easiest to get to, because those other shows will likely have F2F tickets, as opposed to the free-for-all secondary market of NY.

    I'm not disagreeing with you. Priority was better than "request packages"; there's just a little more to it than what you're stating.
    I could write paragraphs on it for sure. It is as simple as it gets though. Priority made MSG tickets easier. You can not argue that. 

    Obviously if priority and odds were in place people would use those odds as a way to put their shows in an order that would give them the best chance of getting as many tickets as they wanted. 

    Now though someone who has no intentions of going to MSG but really wants other shows that are also in demand has an equal chance with the person that only wants to put in for MSG. 

    Using Fenway in 2018 is not the best comparison either since they had so many tickets that year. 

    Compare someone that wants Seattle, Philly or Baltimore. Also factor in they really want GA for those shows and they do not want to go to MSG. They now are making the only MSG peoples odds even harder. 


    The x-factor is transferability, though. Because MSG tickets can be resold for any price, if there was even a 1% chance that I wanted to go to MSG, I would put it as my #1 priority. I can always sell those tickets if I decide not to go, and Philly and Baltimore will have more reasonably-priced F2F tickets. If I put MSG as my #4 priority, and then decide I want to go, I'm stuck hoping that someone will offload tickets at a reasonable price. I would put MSG as my #1 and take my chances. I think a lot of other people did the same thing.

    On top of that, the less scrupulous in the club will put MSG as their #1 just so they can flip the tickets. They may not even put in for other shows.

    Were your odds worse without priority? Yup, no doubt. Did the package method drop them even further? Definitely. I'm just saying it's not as cut-and-dried as "With priority, only people who REALLY wanted to go to MSG would put it as their #1."
    Really wanting to go VS not wanting to go at all and just use as trade or flip for a profit is what I am saying.

     I agree with your points with fan to fan. I wonder though how many out there actually factor in fan to fan and harder shows vs just buying on the secondary market. Sure people here are crazy enough to spend hours on fan to fan a day but others are just as happy to buy for a jacked up price and save their time. 
  • Options
    cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,152
    I'm not going to feel bad for winning tickets to MSG.  I never would have made it my #1 priority (and never had in the past).  But I won GA and I'll be there.  

    Though I would be 100% fine with 10C going back to priority.  Heck, my #1 priority this year would have been Wrigley2...and I lost in that lottery, no tickets.   I hate the idea some come up with regarding "home shows"....letting people who live close have the best shot.  That was fine when they toured like in 2003....but not now.

    How they run the lottery certainly changes the shows I pick.  But it's always cause I am going to go to the shows, or at least plan on it when I enter.  Sometimes I pick a place i suspect has lower interest just to get tickets.  Almost did that this year, but decided against it.  Mostly cause with like 40,000 seats I wrongly thought Wrigley was a guarantee for me.  See ya in NYC.

    hippiemom = goodness
  • Options
    smile6680smile6680 Posts: 355
    edited March 14
    JimmyV said:
    "NYC. More trouble than it's worth." - anonymous Masshole 
    I agree. Fenway isn't worth the trouble either. -Just a guy from Maine
    Post edited by smile6680 on
  • Options
    smile6680smile6680 Posts: 355
    Get_Right said:
    They outsourced the fan club years ago. They sold dog collars. Now they just want to sell tickets as quickly and as easily as possible. Priority never helped get MSG tix. The MSG odds have always been low.
    I don't know if this is true or not. I do believe there is a major disconnect between the ten club/band and their fans. I see all the excuses from fans defending them on this board but, the fact is they no longer seem to communicate or care anymore.

    For the record it's fine with me. They can charge what they want and become more and more disconnected with the fan base if they choose. They are getting older and probably don't want to be bothered with this stuff anymore. 
  • Options
    Tim SimmonsTim Simmons Posts: 7,026
    I always love how Dog collars was the fucking line for merch. Not 12 shirts a tour, or a poster or 3 per show. It’s such a dumb innocuous thing. 
  • Options
    Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 12,492
    So if I get tickets to MSG without the priority does that mean the lottery is better? Priority never worked for me. The lottery has. I guess that is personal and I get it.  I have more success without priority so that may be selfish, but it's true. 
  • Options
    ZodZod Posts: 10,378
    Get_Right said:
    So if I get tickets to MSG without the priority does that mean the lottery is better? Priority never worked for me. The lottery has. I guess that is personal and I get it.  I have more success without priority so that may be selfish, but it's true. 

    It depends.   If your hell bent on going to one specific show in one specific place, then your odds should be higher with priority, because people who got tickets to other shows as their priority can't win them over you.   New York shows are so popular, I think it's always going to be a hard get due to how many people live in the area.  Kind of skews how people view their outcomes.

    I do wonder why they don't do a bigger venue in New York.  MSG doesn't seem near big enough given the population surrounding the new york area.
  • Options
    smile6680smile6680 Posts: 355
    Have prices dropped for the European shows yet? I'm curious how ticket sales are doing now.
  • Options
    RatherStarvedRatherStarved Posts: 4,441
    smile6680 said:
    Have prices dropped for the European shows yet? I'm curious how ticket sales are doing now.
    There have been some price reductions for some high up seats in Berlin and London.  
    PJ: 2013: London (ON); Buffalo; 2014: Cincinnati; 2016: Sunrise, Miami, Toronto 1-2, Wrigley 2; 2018: London (UK) 1, Milan, Padova, Sea 2, Wrigley 1-2, Fenway 1-2; 2021: SHN, Ohana, Ohana Encore 1-2; 2022: LA 1-2, Phx, Oak 1-2, Fresno, Copenhagen, Hyde Park 1-2; Quebec, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto; MSG, Camden, Nashville, Louisville, St. Louis, OKC; 2023: St. Paul 1-2, Chicago 1-2; Fort Worth 2; Austin 1-2
     
    EV Solo: 2017 Louisville and Franklin, 2018 Ohana, 2019 Innings Fest, Berlin, Düsseldorf, Dublin and Ohana; 2021 Ohana Friday (from beach) and Saturday; 2022 Earthlings Newark; 2023 Innings Fest and Benoraya 1-2.

    Gutted:  London 2 2018, Sacramento 2022, Noblesville 2023
  • Options
    Zen23 said:
    Small translation service on my part. The most important passages. Although the title "My ticket, my ruin" and the caption under Mr. Vedder's photo say it all.

    "It is first and foremost the artists who determine with their management what income they expect from a tour." Eddie Vedder.

    Other interesting points:

    With Pearl Jam, however, you have to bear in mind that some of the fans traditionally travel after the band and so have to buy tickets for several concerts. The fan club offers limited special prices for this, but even these are now too expensive for many. Some fans have therefore announced that after decades they will break with the traveling around. They simply couldn't afford it anymore.

    "Pearl Jam, you've completely lost your way," wrote British user Chris-Drake88 in a much-noticed post on the official fan club forum. "Unlike before, you are no longer a band of the people." You can find that overly self-pitying, but the question has not been chewed over yet. If even Pearl Jam, who peddle their commitment to inclusive prices and don't offer flying disco horses or LED show stairs, charge over 170 euros for the bad seats - is that really just down to the system? Or what else?

    There are no answers from the companies that have organized the group's tours now and in the past. Inquiries as to how the prices were arrived at, whether there is a dynamic pricing principle in Germany (as in the USA) and how ticket companies, promoters and artists divide up the proceeds are rejected or ignored.

    Johannes Everke, Managing Director of the Federal Association of the Concert and Event Industry: "It would also be wrong to blame the ticket retailers. First and foremost, it is the artists and their management who determine what revenue they expect from a tour. What the individual tickets cost is then determined by what the organizers and artists agree on in view of the overall costs." This means that Pearl Jam also cross-finance the 200-euro seats in Berlin to a certain extent with the tickets, which the algorithm in the USA sometimes pushes up to over 1000 dollars.
    Wow! I had no idea about this! Thanks for the translation. I'm finding it a bit crazy how noticed my little rant has been!

    Has anybody noticed that some of the 1000s of unsold seats at Tottenham have been reduced in price over the last few weeks? It's great to know that we have a bit of power when we actually stand up and refuse to be overcharged.  Notably, the reduced tickets are still not selling out, so I wonder if they'll end up dropping prices further to sell out the stadium? I hate the idea of PJ playing to empty seats, I'd still love to see them live this year, and if they can work it out, I would 100% love to be there.
  • Options
    pdalowskypdalowsky Doncaster,UK Posts: 14,786
    smile6680 said:
    Have prices dropped for the European shows yet? I'm curious how ticket sales are doing now.
    Doesn't look like tickets are selling well at all at the moment. The London show hasn't changed much in terms of the seats available still.......and the reduction to £92 plus fees to sit on the roof really doesn't appear to have helped. 

    Hopefully the album is a banger and grabs some attention, otherwise it could be a bit of a sad state of affairs come gig day

    Manchester is 90% sold out it seems, its unlikely it'll reach sell out status with the availability in the upper tier still but once the lights go down that isn't going to be noticeable at all
  • Options
    axeljohanaxeljohan Posts: 419
    edited March 19
    I think they got much bad PR when ticket sales started, that they won't sell many ticktes in Europe at the moment.

    Either you heard about those initial prices and think they are too high and don't bother looking for tickets anymore.
    Or you see that they started to reduce prices and you wait for more sections to be reduced.
    Post edited by axeljohan on
  • Options
    Zen23Zen23 Posts: 381
    The £92 seats are really only the very last ones in the huge South Stand. This stand alone can hold 17,500 spectators. The remaining rows cost either £125 or £160. That is complete madness. Almost nothing moves there.
  • Options
    smile6680smile6680 Posts: 355
    Zen23 said:
    Small translation service on my part. The most important passages. Although the title "My ticket, my ruin" and the caption under Mr. Vedder's photo say it all.

    "It is first and foremost the artists who determine with their management what income they expect from a tour." Eddie Vedder.

    Other interesting points:

    With Pearl Jam, however, you have to bear in mind that some of the fans traditionally travel after the band and so have to buy tickets for several concerts. The fan club offers limited special prices for this, but even these are now too expensive for many. Some fans have therefore announced that after decades they will break with the traveling around. They simply couldn't afford it anymore.

    "Pearl Jam, you've completely lost your way," wrote British user Chris-Drake88 in a much-noticed post on the official fan club forum. "Unlike before, you are no longer a band of the people." You can find that overly self-pitying, but the question has not been chewed over yet. If even Pearl Jam, who peddle their commitment to inclusive prices and don't offer flying disco horses or LED show stairs, charge over 170 euros for the bad seats - is that really just down to the system? Or what else?

    There are no answers from the companies that have organized the group's tours now and in the past. Inquiries as to how the prices were arrived at, whether there is a dynamic pricing principle in Germany (as in the USA) and how ticket companies, promoters and artists divide up the proceeds are rejected or ignored.

    Johannes Everke, Managing Director of the Federal Association of the Concert and Event Industry: "It would also be wrong to blame the ticket retailers. First and foremost, it is the artists and their management who determine what revenue they expect from a tour. What the individual tickets cost is then determined by what the organizers and artists agree on in view of the overall costs." This means that Pearl Jam also cross-finance the 200-euro seats in Berlin to a certain extent with the tickets, which the algorithm in the USA sometimes pushes up to over 1000 dollars.
    Wow! I had no idea about this! Thanks for the translation. I'm finding it a bit crazy how noticed my little rant has been!

    Has anybody noticed that some of the 1000s of unsold seats at Tottenham have been reduced in price over the last few weeks? It's great to know that we have a bit of power when we actually stand up and refuse to be overcharged.  Notably, the reduced tickets are still not selling out, so I wonder if they'll end up dropping prices further to sell out the stadium? I hate the idea of PJ playing to empty seats, I'd still love to see them live this year, and if they can work it out, I would 100% love to be there.
    Where is this article from. Just curious who wrote it. I'm also surprised in what appears to be a big difference in demand for tickets in the U.S compared to Europe. 
  • Options
    Zen23Zen23 Posts: 381
    Süddeutsche Zeitung. A very large German daily newspaper. 
  • Options
    smile6680smile6680 Posts: 355
    Zen23 said:
    Süddeutsche Zeitung. A very large German daily newspaper. 
    Thanks for the reply.
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,304
    I always love how Dog collars was the fucking line for merch. Not 12 shirts a tour, or a poster or 3 per show. It’s such a dumb innocuous thing. 
    Pre tsurt and post?
  • Options
    Tim SimmonsTim Simmons Posts: 7,026
    I mean, I guess. But the reality is if the fans are buying shit, they’re gonna keep making more stuff. Maybe it’s growing up Catholic but I feel like it’s our fault not theirs. They’re trying to make fans happy. 
  • Options
    smile6680smile6680 Posts: 355
    I mean, I guess. But the reality is if the fans are buying shit, they’re gonna keep making more stuff. Maybe it’s growing up Catholic but I feel like it’s our fault not theirs. They’re trying to make fans happy. 
    I agree. I really don't care what they sell. I'm only interested in tickets, the price, availability and if seniority matters. I would typically buy something when attending a show until Fenway 2016. Lines were early and insane. Luckily I grabbed a couple copies of a poster that had "sold out" before the show on the way out of the venue. 
  • Options
    Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 12,492
    Make no mistake. The band absolutely shifted to a corporate model when riot act or maybe avocado came out. What they do on stage is still real but they have monetized the band. Cannot blame them for that. 
  • Options
    PB11041PB11041 Earth Posts: 2,795
    Get_Right said:
    Make no mistake. The band absolutely shifted to a corporate model when riot act or maybe avocado came out. What they do on stage is still real but they have monetized the band. Cannot blame them for that. 
    so many fans have refused to accept the reality of where the music industry has gone, and it is an industry, one can keep fantasizing about it being 1993-1994 but that ship sailed 3 decades ago.  And to your point by the 2003-2006 era, digital was taking over and the model of how artists made money became 95% reliant on touring.   They are a business, not a charity.  
    His eminence has yet to show. 
    http://www.hi5sports.org/ (Sports Program for Kids with Disabilities)
    http://www.livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3652

  • Options
    vedpunkvedpunk Posts: 853
    PB11041 said:
    Get_Right said:
    Make no mistake. The band absolutely shifted to a corporate model when riot act or maybe avocado came out. What they do on stage is still real but they have monetized the band. Cannot blame them for that. 
    so many fans have refused to accept the reality of where the music industry has gone, and it is an industry, one can keep fantasizing about it being 1993-1994 but that ship sailed 3 decades ago.  And to your point by the 2003-2006 era, digital was taking over and the model of how artists made money became 95% reliant on touring.   They are a business, not a charity.  
    Amen. Some people are stuck in 1995.
  • Options
    Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,725
    Get_Right said:
    Make no mistake. The band absolutely shifted to a corporate model when riot act or maybe avocado came out. What they do on stage is still real but they have monetized the band. Cannot blame them for that. 
    The band signed with Sony in 1991. The corporate model has always been in place with the band in different manifestations. Anyone upset in 2024 wasn’t paying attention in 1991. 
  • Options
    Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 12,492
    Get_Right said:
    Make no mistake. The band absolutely shifted to a corporate model when riot act or maybe avocado came out. What they do on stage is still real but they have monetized the band. Cannot blame them for that. 
    The band signed with Sony in 1991. The corporate model has always been in place with the band in different manifestations. Anyone upset in 2024 wasn’t paying attention in 1991. 

    I think it was still handled in house until Riot Act. Around the time when the memberships went digital/analog. No real facts here but it was obvious that something changed. I also have a friend that runs fan clubs for bands and it was around that time that his business blew up.
  • Options
    Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,725
    Get_Right said:
    Get_Right said:
    Make no mistake. The band absolutely shifted to a corporate model when riot act or maybe avocado came out. What they do on stage is still real but they have monetized the band. Cannot blame them for that. 
    The band signed with Sony in 1991. The corporate model has always been in place with the band in different manifestations. Anyone upset in 2024 wasn’t paying attention in 1991. 

    I think it was still handled in house until Riot Act. Around the time when the memberships went digital/analog. No real facts here but it was obvious that something changed. I also have a friend that runs fan clubs for bands and it was around that time that his business blew up.
    But this idea that the band didn’t want to make big money until later on is a myth. 
  • Options
    smile6680smile6680 Posts: 355
    PB11041 said:
    Get_Right said:
    Make no mistake. The band absolutely shifted to a corporate model when riot act or maybe avocado came out. What they do on stage is still real but they have monetized the band. Cannot blame them for that. 
    so many fans have refused to accept the reality of where the music industry has gone, and it is an industry, one can keep fantasizing about it being 1993-1994 but that ship sailed 3 decades ago.  And to your point by the 2003-2006 era, digital was taking over and the model of how artists made money became 95% reliant on touring.   They are a business, not a charity.  
    I agree. I don't know why some fans wont accept that pearl Jam has changed (at least business wise). It's like if they accept they are no longer the people they were 20+ years they can no longer listen to and enjoy their music. 


  • Options
    smile6680 said:
    Zen23 said:
    Small translation service on my part. The most important passages. Although the title "My ticket, my ruin" and the caption under Mr. Vedder's photo say it all.

    "It is first and foremost the artists who determine with their management what income they expect from a tour." Eddie Vedder.

    Other interesting points:

    With Pearl Jam, however, you have to bear in mind that some of the fans traditionally travel after the band and so have to buy tickets for several concerts. The fan club offers limited special prices for this, but even these are now too expensive for many. Some fans have therefore announced that after decades they will break with the traveling around. They simply couldn't afford it anymore.

    "Pearl Jam, you've completely lost your way," wrote British user Chris-Drake88 in a much-noticed post on the official fan club forum. "Unlike before, you are no longer a band of the people." You can find that overly self-pitying, but the question has not been chewed over yet. If even Pearl Jam, who peddle their commitment to inclusive prices and don't offer flying disco horses or LED show stairs, charge over 170 euros for the bad seats - is that really just down to the system? Or what else?

    There are no answers from the companies that have organized the group's tours now and in the past. Inquiries as to how the prices were arrived at, whether there is a dynamic pricing principle in Germany (as in the USA) and how ticket companies, promoters and artists divide up the proceeds are rejected or ignored.

    Johannes Everke, Managing Director of the Federal Association of the Concert and Event Industry: "It would also be wrong to blame the ticket retailers. First and foremost, it is the artists and their management who determine what revenue they expect from a tour. What the individual tickets cost is then determined by what the organizers and artists agree on in view of the overall costs." This means that Pearl Jam also cross-finance the 200-euro seats in Berlin to a certain extent with the tickets, which the algorithm in the USA sometimes pushes up to over 1000 dollars.
    Wow! I had no idea about this! Thanks for the translation. I'm finding it a bit crazy how noticed my little rant has been!

    Has anybody noticed that some of the 1000s of unsold seats at Tottenham have been reduced in price over the last few weeks? It's great to know that we have a bit of power when we actually stand up and refuse to be overcharged.  Notably, the reduced tickets are still not selling out, so I wonder if they'll end up dropping prices further to sell out the stadium? I hate the idea of PJ playing to empty seats, I'd still love to see them live this year, and if they can work it out, I would 100% love to be there.
    Where is this article from. Just curious who wrote it. I'm also surprised in what appears to be a big difference in demand for tickets in the U.S compared to Europe. 
    The demand is there, we just don't pay that amount of money for tickets here. AC/DC are doing a stadium tour this year and are charging 25% less.
    People are pissed about AC/DC charging that amount and I'd probably say that they're a bigger band than PJ in Europe. 
  • Options
    lastexitlondonlastexitlondon Posts: 12,489
    edited March 22
    Demand is massive they would sell out x2 02 x2 manc x2 Scotland with no bother. At reasonable prices. But they don't care, less shows. Shorter sets double money . Will still sell and make money. 
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • Options
    Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 12,492
    Get_Right said:
    Get_Right said:
    Make no mistake. The band absolutely shifted to a corporate model when riot act or maybe avocado came out. What they do on stage is still real but they have monetized the band. Cannot blame them for that. 
    The band signed with Sony in 1991. The corporate model has always been in place with the band in different manifestations. Anyone upset in 2024 wasn’t paying attention in 1991. 

    I think it was still handled in house until Riot Act. Around the time when the memberships went digital/analog. No real facts here but it was obvious that something changed. I also have a friend that runs fan clubs for bands and it was around that time that his business blew up.
    But this idea that the band didn’t want to make big money until later on is a myth. 


    I agree with that. The point I am trying to make is that at some point they engaged professionals to maximize the big money. Make music, play live and collect the checks. Leave the rest up to us. That is the pitch.
  • Options
    ZodZod Posts: 10,378
    Yah.. and they're older so you can't really blame them for trying to earn more while working less.   I think many of us would do that.  Plus they've hit the age where I'm hoping to retire at one day, so I can't really be upset their working into years where I might not be :)
Sign In or Register to comment.