Billboard: Pearl Jam: 'Back' To The Future

hopethatuchoke wrote:

"The group remains a huge touring draw and A-list festival headliner, having grossed nearly $42 million from 51 shows reported to Billboard Boxscore from 2006 to 2008."


I am really curious as to how the apologists who defend the high ticket prices will respond to that glaring statistic.

A bunch of cool news in there. I can't wait for the vault.

I really don't know enough about this, but here's my opinion. Scalpers are prominent now that, should an artist price tickets too low, when the demand is too great, I would think that scalpers would catch onto this, buy tons of tickets, and resell away at higher prices. Obviously this doesn't sound right, but I'd say true market price, the price which Pearl Jam SHOULD be selling tickets at to maximize profit, is probably the average cost for a sold out show including all money spent on tickets - including both primary and secondary markets, and then work their ticket prices up and down from this average - include many cheapie seats, and some pricier ones. If the band could've charged $90 'back in the day' for a ticket - who's to say they wouldn't have?

Curtis says the plan for 2010 touring is still coming together and that the band is deciding whether to play outdoor amphitheaters or arenas, which it prefers.

Play as many arenas as you want, but just make sure you PLAY ALPINE!!!

hopethatuchoke wrote:

There is a huge difference between your used car dealership making 6 figures a year and PJ making $42 MILLION. He isn't morally obligated to sell you at a discount but I doubt that he went public with interviews in the 90's saying fuck ticketmaster, I love Fugazi and $15 tickets, it's all about keeping ticket prices low, etc.

They aren't charging $300 because very very few people would pay $300. $200 poster books, $40 tshirts, $35 posters, $80 tickets for Eddie sitting by himself on stage for 2 hours....they ARE driven by money. When you make $42 million, you can probably afford to lower some of your prices a bit. And their prices are in line by certain shows (Bruce, The Stones) but definitely out of line when you compare them to other contemporaries closer to them in success and relevance (Radiohead, Green Day, etc.) Even Metallica is cheaper than them and they have a very sick stage setup. Actually, Bruce had $19.67 tickets for the spectrum shows.

By taking care of the fans, I mean not charging the maximum amount. I would say they are on the cusp of the amount of money they can charge and sell out. After service charges, Philly tickets were a little more than $90. I don't think they sell out 2 shows if they are $110 each. There is NO REASON why Spectrum tickets that cost $40 in 2003 should be $90 in 2009 OTHER than the band wants the money. As I said...that is fine. We pay it, it's their choice but people can't continue to say they are a "band of the people" and it's all about the fans. It is clearly about the money at this point. More power to them.

I know it isn't the central figure to your argument, but (again) Pearl Jam did not MAKE $42 million last year. I'm sure they made a hefty penny. I'm not arguing that. But it's difficult to discuss an issue like this with some who shows very little grasp of basic economic terms.

The $42 million is what they GROSSED. Essentially, that's the amount of tickets they sold. That $42 million gets cut about 90,000 ways before it winds up in Eddie Vedder's pocket.

Now that we've got that out of the way ... we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, "driven by money" means "all I care about is money." And I don't get that vibe from this band at all. If the fan base dried up overnight, I believe Ed would still play music for his own cathartic benefit in his basement, whether or not he made money off of it or not.

Also, have you checked out the amount of money these guys give away each year, both individually and as a group? Seems like if it were "all about money," they'd hold on to a little more of it for themselves, eh?

Essentially, your argument boils down to the same old rich-person penis envy that is ruining America on a broader scale. "Wah! You're rich, and I'm not. You should cut me a break and give me something for less than it's worth. C'mon, you can afford it! Wah!"

Frankly, your claim that it is "clearly only about money at this point" is just as silly as those who would argue that Pearl Jam is a "band of the people" (what in the fuck does that even mean?). It's a ridiculous, over-the-top extreme, and ridiculous, over-the-top extremes almost never paint an accurate portrait of the truth. There can't be any middle ground here? Really? They've either got to give their art away for substantially less than it's worth, or they've got to be money-grubbing douchebags?

How about, they are charging a premium now to recoup all of the money left on the table when they were charging well below the market rate in the 90s? How about they are an admittedly expensive concert ticket, but they still do things to take care of and appreciate their fan base?

Or does it have to be all or none, black and white? They are either philanthropists or they are fan-gouging assholes?

Pearl Jam did their part in the 90s to keep costs low. Now, those days are gone. It seems silly to hold them to a standard set 15 years ago, just like it would be silly for others to hold you or I to a standard set 15 years ago. Times change. People change. It's time to move on and stop living in the past.

Anyway, enjoy your Fugazi show. I'm sure it will be worth every penny.

excellent article

non-entity wrote:

rrivers wrote:

Interesting, how is the 12/31 and Drop in the Park flawed? I know about Unplugged.

12/31 was a below average recording, one that was already circulating amongst the trading community for many years. when I'm getting a show directly from the band, as incentive to pay more and order the album from the fan club, rather than buying the same album for a cheaper price at a store, I expect it to be a professionally recorded show.

Drop in the Park is missing songs (Sonic Reducer and RITFW). there are also fades between songs. no good.

some of you may flame me (flame on) or think I'm being picky and should just be grateful, but this is a band that has a history of valuing live recordings. I would not have paid for these things had I known about these flaws, and that makes me feel ripped off.

it's like hiring a world renown chef to prepare your dinner and he or she brings out frozen pizza.

Thanks. Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to argue I just didn't know that about 12/31 and Drop in the Park. I listened to 12/31 maybe once or twice and Drop in the Park is on my ipod, but I haven't looked closely to see if songs are missing.

I agree with you, I didn't like that Unplugged was missing songs. If they want to sell something with missing songs, fine, but you need to let people know when they are buying it. This has been beaten to death, but Unplugged was really lame because they hyped it as including "Oceans" which was unaired, failing to mention
that song(s) were left off and Ed talking between songs.
Back to the thread: I am very excited about the album and this article. I have really liked what I have heard so far from the album and like "The fixer" more every time I hear it.

slightofjeff wrote:

hopethatuchoke wrote:

There is a huge difference between your used car dealership making 6 figures a year and PJ making $42 MILLION. He isn't morally obligated to sell you at a discount but I doubt that he went public with interviews in the 90's saying fuck ticketmaster, I love Fugazi and $15 tickets, it's all about keeping ticket prices low, etc.

They aren't charging $300 because very very few people would pay $300. $200 poster books, $40 tshirts, $35 posters, $80 tickets for Eddie sitting by himself on stage for 2 hours....they ARE driven by money. When you make $42 million, you can probably afford to lower some of your prices a bit. And their prices are in line by certain shows (Bruce, The Stones) but definitely out of line when you compare them to other contemporaries closer to them in success and relevance (Radiohead, Green Day, etc.) Even Metallica is cheaper than them and they have a very sick stage setup. Actually, Bruce had $19.67 tickets for the spectrum shows.

By taking care of the fans, I mean not charging the maximum amount. I would say they are on the cusp of the amount of money they can charge and sell out. After service charges, Philly tickets were a little more than $90. I don't think they sell out 2 shows if they are $110 each. There is NO REASON why Spectrum tickets that cost $40 in 2003 should be $90 in 2009 OTHER than the band wants the money. As I said...that is fine. We pay it, it's their choice but people can't continue to say they are a "band of the people" and it's all about the fans. It is clearly about the money at this point. More power to them.

I know it isn't the central figure to your argument, but (again) Pearl Jam did not MAKE $42 million last year. I'm sure they made a hefty penny. I'm not arguing that. But it's difficult to discuss an issue like this with some who shows very little grasp of basic economic terms.

The $42 million is what they GROSSED. Essentially, that's the amount of tickets they sold. That $42 million gets cut about 90,000 ways before it winds up in Eddie Vedder's pocket.

Now that we've got that out of the way ... we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, "driven by money" means "all I care about is money." And I don't get that vibe from this band at all. If the fan base dried up overnight, I believe Ed would still play music for his own cathartic benefit in his basement, whether or not he made money off of it or not.

Also, have you checked out the amount of money these guys give away each year, both individually and as a group? Seems like if it were "all about money," they'd hold on to a little more of it for themselves, eh?

Essentially, your argument boils down to the same old rich-person penis envy that is ruining America on a broader scale. "Wah! You're rich, and I'm not. You should cut me a break and give me something for less than it's worth. C'mon, you can afford it! Wah!"

Frankly, your claim that it is "clearly only about money at this point" is just as silly as those who would argue that Pearl Jam is a "band of the people" (what in the fuck does that even mean?). It's a ridiculous, over-the-top extreme, and ridiculous, over-the-top extremes almost never paint an accurate portrait of the truth. There can't be any middle ground here? Really? They've either got to give their art away for substantially less than it's worth, or they've got to be money-grubbing douchebags?

How about, they are charging a premium now to recoup all of the money left on the table when they were charging well below the market rate in the 90s? How about they are an admittedly expensive concert ticket, but they still do things to take care of and appreciate their fan base?

Or does it have to be all or none, black and white? They are either philanthropists or they are fan-gouging assholes?

Pearl Jam did their part in the 90s to keep costs low. Now, those days are gone. It seems silly to hold them to a standard set 15 years ago, just like it would be silly for others to hold you or I to a standard set 15 years ago. Times change. People change. It's time to move on and stop living in the past.

Anyway, enjoy your Fugazi show. I'm sure it will be worth every penny.

Very well said, slightofjeff.

hopethatuchoke wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

We seem to forget that 1995 Pearl Jam didn't care so much about money because they didn't have families. Ed never thought he live long, and so on.. Now not only are they making money for themselves, but their children and their children's children.. Not to mention the hundreds of people who work for them, set up the tour, board moderators, merch, and so on..

Their careers won't be forever. We'll be lucky to get another 10 years out of them. I'm sure they are saving up as much money as they can for their families and retirement.

Hundreds? LOL. I think someone told me the Ten Club staff was only about 10-15 people. It's also worth noting how horrible their servers are when tickets go on sale or any high traffic event. You are right though...now that they have a few kids each, $42 million isn't nearly enough money

What about the people who help stage the tour? he sound engineers? I've also heard that albums cost millions to make.

Great article! Thank you Jonathan Cohen!

LikeAnOcean wrote:

hopethatuchoke wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I've also heard that albums cost millions to make.

Millions? Why, exactly?

Only slight bummer to me is that there will only be 37 minutes of new music. Hoping for "all killer, no filler"