FM Billboard Boxscore - top concerts

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by LukeA

I respect your opinion. But, if Fleetwood Mac/Live Nation knew that these dates- most of them in prime east coast/Midwest markets- would only average 10,000 and ~$1M per show gross, they would have adjusted, delayed, or canceled their plans. In that sense, it is a disappointment.

But they fill about 90 percent with those figures. What the heck are you talking about?

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

But they fill about 90 percent with those figures. What the heck are you talking about?

As I demonstrated a couple posts back (using Auburn Hills as an example), the capacity figure often is not truly reflective of the success (or lack thereof) of the show.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by LukeA

As I demonstrated a couple posts back (using Auburn Hills as an example), the capacity figure often is not truly reflective of the success (or lack thereof) of the show.

Well, these figures are published but we all need to listen to LukeA because he knows everybody's lying. You're a great guy Luke, but you're not very convincing this time. 90 percent of the reviews were very negative too if you expected that this band would have been hailed as the new artistic surprise in musicland.

[MacMan]

Don't promoters look at a tour as a whole to determine if it's a failure or a success and not on a show by show basis. Yeah sure some shows may do better then others, but at the end of the day doesn't it all come down to what the tour at the end ends up making?

Also... I don't understand why these numbers would even be published if they were manipulated numbers. What would be the point of that?

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Well, these figures are published but we all need to listen to LukeA because he knows everybody's lying. You're a great guy Luke, but you're not very convincing this time.

I have first hand knowledge/experience with these types of reports- I've filled them out myself. The data isn't meant to be scientific- its a collective courtesy by the promoters to share the data that they want to present. There's virtually no auditing process by Amusement Business/Billboard, or Pollstar. I have a professional working knowledge of virtually all of the venues Fleetwood Mac are playing on this tour. I can tell when seating capacities are fudged.

But, hey, don't just take my word for it. If you think that a half-curtained venue in a major market is a runaway sellout success, don't let me stop you.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by MacMan

Don't promoters look at a tour as a whole to determine if it's a failure or a success and not on a show by show basis. Yeah sure some shows may do better then others, but at the end of the day doesn't it all come down to what the tour at the end ends up making?

Yes and no. While Live Nation is the primary promoter on all of these dates, they have also have partners in some of these markets (Auburn Hills being one of them)

Originally Posted by MacMan

Also... I don't understand why these numbers would even be published if they were manipulated numbers. What would be the point of that?

To give the impression that shows were more successful/not as disastrous as they were. After years of seeing how these reports were prepared and presented- and how there was really no standard (not just between companies, but also in the same office, with the different talent buyers)- I take most of this info with a grain of salt. Its too easy to manipulate to spin one way or the other.

[MacMan]

So is this how it works?

Live Nation takes on or bids on Fleetwood Mac's tour and wins the bid at say a guarantee to the band of 800k per show.. They then put feelers out to markets to see who wants to take on a show... and if markets do, the local venues that agreed to take a show are partnered with Live Nation to fill the arena... If the arena doesn't sell enough to cover the said guarantee to the band (the way I understand it, the band makes the guarantee Live Nation agreed to pay whether it sells enough or not), then who's on the hook? Live Nation as the promoter or the local guy? And don't Live Nation own a ton of these venues anyway?

And... What is a talent buyer, or who are they? Is Live Nation considered a Talent buyer?

And regarding venues that curtain off the top tier... I guess you could consider it manipulation if it's reported as sold out when sections are curtained off... How they get away with it, or how they should present it is by saying of the AVAILABLE tickets, this many were sold.

Example for the same venue:

SYW Tour 2003
New York City 11,418 attendance - capacity 13,208 - Gross 1,159,745 86%

Unleashed Tour 2009
New York City 14,955 attendance - capacity 15,258 - Gross 1,708,005 98%

Same venue... Different capacity, or available tickets to buy... The available tickets end of it can totally be manipulated.

Also... I still don't see the point in publishing manipulated numbers. For who's benefit? It's not like album charts where people see those numbers regularly, and base a buying decision on a chart placement... It's basically only industry types that would see the bulk outside of the Top 10. And since there aren't that many promoters around.... I don't get who's benefiting by seeing these numbers except for the curious.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by LukeA

Even though its all under the Live Nation umbrella, the different talent buyers, production managers, box office managers, etc. account for the clear variances. Its very easy to manipulate. The only numbers that mean a damn are the number of tickets sold, and the gross- those are the constants (and even THAT can be suspicious every once in a while, like what Live Nation's Chicago office is reporting for the Rosemont shows... but, knowing them, it doesn't surprise me).

Regarding Auburn Hills. When the Auburn Hills show was first put on sale, approximately 19000 tickets were available on the manifest that day. As the day of the show grew closer, they knew they weren't going to sell anywhere near enough tickets to justify that seating configuration/price scaling, and they adjusted both (as DavidMN described, with the curtains in the upper level, relocating people who bought tickets in the affected sections) accordingly, deep discounting tickets that were selling at $79.50 (as reflected in the average ticket price). It was in THAT configuration that they sold 90% (a large chunk not at their initial face value) of the house. If you still think that means Fleetwood Mac had a near-sellout in Auburn Hills, you can see how that's more of an opinion than a fact.

Even in this sh*tty economy, Fleetwood Mac in Auburn Hills on a Sunday should have been worth at LEAST 14000 paid tickets. Its one of the markets they hit three times on the SYW tour, and even though they wouldn't have been able to do that this time, it should have done better.

I hear what you are saying, but Detroit is bankrupt and almost everyone there is in hard economic times or has to be a little careful because much of city hardly has enough money left over to sustain buying the essentials, much less spend $500 on two tickets to a FM concert, parking, dinner, booze, etc. So, that FM was able to sell anything at all, much less get a 90% capacity and generate the rev. they did is great and far from a disaster as that term is usually used So, I think people are not disputing your noting that the concerts are not selling as well as they could be. They are taking issue with your phrasing.

For example, IMO a disaster or embarrassment would have been a 60% capacity with 2/3 of that rev. I think that is why people are disagreeing with you.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by MacMan

. . . And since there aren't that many promoters around.... I don't get who's benefiting by seeing these numbers except for the curious.

And, why manipulate one or two shows and not them all I suppose they could use these fudged numbers to get some publicity and build excitement, but that argument must fail because these rather obscure and hard to find numbers are not used in FM ads, etc.

In the end, I think that for a band of this age who has not had a true hit in over a decade - the numbers are respectable in most markets and good in some.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by LukeA

But, hey, don't just take my word for it. If you think that a half-curtained venue in a major market is a runaway sellout success, don't let me stop you.

Hey, here you go again. I said before: even if there's a ring curtained every now and then , and there are still around 10.000 people in the house, you just can't say it's a disaster. I have NEVER said that it was a runaway sellout succes, but in your world there doesn't seem anything in between. 80 to 90 percent fillout average is just amazing considering the state and phase this band is in. And the avarage appreciation isn't too bad either. Whatever your knowledge is: you can't say that this tour is a disaster. With that, you overlook the enormous pleasure people seem to have on this tour. In the band and, especially, outside of the band. You don't have to paint the picture pink, but you seem to blacken everything, which gives the impression that you WANT so see them fail. Which I can't imagine is true, therefore I keep trying to discuss about it and convince you that you are overstretching.

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by LukeA

If you think that a half-curtained venue in a major market is a runaway sellout success, don't let me stop you.

As I'm sure LukeA knows, the above quote certainly isn't exclusive to
Fleetwood Mac. Most acts use this type of gimmick to achieve a sell-
out. And the acts like to post attendance (even if manipulated) for the
"buzz" on the current tour and future tours.

And I've personally seen attendance records underreported.
And the reason for that..........well I'll let you guys figure it out.

[skcin]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

The glass is half empty in your world Luke. This band is 6 years older without an album to promote. Hell, even their supposed marketingtool isn't released yet. I never expected it, I thought you were right when you predicted it would be a failure with these ticketprices, but this band is doing incredibly well. Even if they must rearrange an arena every once in while. These figures can be manipulated in some way, but it is bogus to think that they did that for 13 shows that had quite an equal average: around tenthousand people and around a million dollars. Just stop painting black pictures dude.

I agree - this tour is doing pretty well, considering your above point that there is no new album, and that people are pretty damn broke right now.

Originally Posted by LukeA

I have first hand knowledge/experience with these types of reports- I've filled them out myself. The data isn't meant to be scientific- its a collective courtesy by the promoters to share the data that they want to present. There's virtually no auditing process by Amusement Business/Billboard, or Pollstar. I have a professional working knowledge of virtually all of the venues Fleetwood Mac are playing on this tour. I can tell when seating capacities are fudged.

But, hey, don't just take my word for it. If you think that a half-curtained venue in a major market is a runaway sellout success, don't let me stop you.

Has anyone here said this tour has been a runaway sellout success? I don't think so - if they did, I missed it. There can be a middle ground here - the tour can be successful without being a smash & selling venues out. Just because that's not happening doesn' t mean it's total ****.

And I understand what you mean about the number of actual seats vs. number of seats sold, but isn't this also true for many other acts? I mean, are John/Joel selling all 19,000 seats, or are they curtaining portions off? Neil Diamond fills venues pretty consistenly, yet we were upgraded from nosebleeds to better seats to fill in a few empty areas. Are you counting the 3,000 seats with obstructed vews behind the stage (which I rarely see used at a concert unless it's center stage or something?) Like, if a 19,000 seat venue now has a 16,000 seat capacity, is that manipulating the numbers? I'm just wondering how that works.

[ontheEdgeof17]

I have a question about broker tickets. If they don't sell them, do they eat the tickets? I mean, they are sold, right? So, if they bought the tickets, but no one buys them, the seat in the venue is empty, but it will still show as sold, correct? So venues can look empty, with tickets actually being sold.


Correct me if I am wrong.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by MacMan

So is this how it works?

I'll try my best... let me know if I'm not explaining something well enough, or if I'm leaving something out.

Originally Posted by MacMan

Live Nation takes on or bids on Fleetwood Mac's tour and wins the bid at say a guarantee to the band of 800k per show.. They then put feelers out to markets to see who wants to take on a show... and if markets do, the local venues that agreed to take a show are partnered with Live Nation to fill the arena

The cities/markets that are ultimately chosen for a tour are determined by many different factors, which include (but are not limited to)

-date/venue availability (some venues are super busy, and you have to take whatever date they can give you)
-the days of the week (certain markets/venues need to be on weekends to be successful, especially ones that pull people from a large region)
-routing (if you're lugging everything around in a half dozen 18 wheelers like most big arena tours, this is a major consideration)
-the big picture (ex. you book X market on Leg 1, because you want to play Y market that's 50 miles away on Leg 2).

Generally speaking, the venue doesn't have a significant vested interest in the show. Most often, of course they're going to say that they want the show and think it will do great there, because they want the rent check and all the other venue-specific ancillary income streams that are common with an event (parking, concessions, their % cut of the merch, venue facility fees added to tickets, etc.) Theoretically, they could be adamant about not having a particular event, but this is more common in instances where the venue themselves may be promoting a show that would directly compete with what I might want to bring in (something genre specific, like theatricals, boxing, rodeos, etc.)

Promoters do occasionally cut deals with venue management companies (such as SMG, Global Spectrum), etc.- companies that manage dozens of facilities across the country. They will financially partner with the company and bring an artist to, say, a dozen of their venues. Bruce Springsteen does this a lot with SMG venues.

Promoters inherently have relationships with the arenas in their respective territories, but it doesn't necessarily mean they always, or even ever, have partnerships (financial commitment and profits/losses directly related to the success of the event) with them.

Originally Posted by MacMan

And don't Live Nation own a ton of these venues anyway?

Live Nation owns virtually all of the major outdoor amphitheaters ("sheds")- but they don't own any arenas. They have contractual agreements with some (especially in markets with two major arenas, where they'll drive all their arena shows to one of the venues except in rare instances), but they don't own the actual building.

Originally Posted by MacMan

And... What is a talent buyer, or who are they? Is Live Nation considered a Talent buyer?

In the case of Live Nation, they have several offices in different regions across the United States & Canada (and the world), each headed by one, or in some cases two, senior talent buyers. A talent buyer oversees the management of an event from its conception to completion, from a marketing, artist-relationship, venue-relationship, and everything in between. Its impossible for me to overstate all they have to do to pull everything off, while maintaining fiscal responsibility with an eye for profit.

Originally Posted by MacMan

And regarding venues that curtain off the top tier... I guess you could consider it manipulation if it's reported as sold out when sections are curtained off... How they get away with it, or how they should present it is by saying of the AVAILABLE tickets, this many were sold.

Example for the same venue:

SYW Tour 2003
New York City 11,418 attendance - capacity 13,208 - Gross 1,159,745 86%

Unleashed Tour 2009
New York City 14,955 attendance - capacity 15,258 - Gross 1,708,005 98%

Same venue... Different capacity, or available tickets to buy... The available tickets end of it can totally be manipulated.

Exactly. The capacity is whatever you want it to be. It doesn't mean a-ny-thing. As others have posted already, its all about the spin.

Hell, you can even spin what you posted, despite the fact that its an imperfect comparison. That MSG SYW show was the fourth show in the NY metro area, so its no surprise that it was the lesser attended of the two. But, someone who wants to spin it another way would say "who says this tour is tanking? attendance and gross are way up!", while being factually right and intellectually wrong at the same time.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

I have a question about broker tickets. If they don't sell them, do they eat the tickets? I mean, they are sold, right? So, if they bought the tickets, but no one buys them, the seat in the venue is empty, but it will still show as sold, correct? So venues can look empty, with tickets actually being sold.


Correct me if I am wrong.

No, you're correct. Brokers make ungodly amounts of money selling tickets to hot events, and lose ungodly amounts of money getting stuck with tickets that don't sell.

Some high profile artists have counted on/benefited highly from broker speculation to add shows/sell more tickets than they're actually worth, creating a false sense of demand and a VERY soft ticket (plenty to be had) come showtime. (see: Madonna's last three tours)