Marketing 101. I don't go to concerts often, but there was one last year. Tickets for the thursday show were sold out within minutes, but oh look, they tried Really Hard and revealed they were going to do an EXTRA show on the Friday!<p>(they already had it planned but wanted to make sure the first show on the less popular day was sold out first)
In short, the author thinks it's the same reason that a half empty club will keep a line waiting outside: it inflates demand. Reality is probably that's one of the reasons only some of the time.
It may have been true in a bygone era when it was a crapshoot to "wing" plans and change mid-adventure, when the people standing in line couldn't just check the slab in their pocket to find alternative options such as venues without a line.
> thinks it's the same reason that a half empty club will keep a line waiting outside<p>Yeah, one of the most famous club in Berlin used to pull that trick, now it is about to close because the owners are not making enough money. People aren't fooled by these tactics anymore.
[dead]
<a href="https://archive.is/92Xsy" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/92Xsy</a>
In the era of venues, ticket sellers and resellers being one and the same, a show is never really sold out. It's a marketing tool, yes, but in the context of the "underplay", it's also a way to limit supply, thus increasing the price of the ticket in order to collect fees on that inflated ticket price as many times as possible.
Because Brooklyn is finished.
I don't think this is "sneaky" - to use the term from the article. Yes, on the one hand a band could maximize by playing in a larger venue, but maybe doing so diminishes the experience for more people. Smaller venues, greater precision, and budgeting, and a better experience for the audience seems like a win.<p>Not quite sure this is an issue that needs an article in Bloomberg
Maybe it’s the old man in me but I’d venture to say most things in Bloomberg don’t need to be in Bloomberg.<p>I’d love it if a news site said occasionally, “there’s nothing really news worthy today. Yesterday’s important stuff will do.”<p>Also I’m mad I can’t get tickets to see angine de poitrine in Philly.
And from what I’ve experienced: bigger shows aren’t cheaper! Smaller for the win.
I’ve avoided arena shows for decades because they’re usually super-expensive and a less satisfying experience. Back in the 90s when I made a comment in the Discipline Global Mobile website about deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it, Robert Fripp himself reposted it in his online diary approvingly. I think I’m willing to go a bit higher than that on both these days (I’ll see a show in a large theater which I’m guessing is around 1–2000 seats and inflation and higher income has raised my threshold on what I’ll spend on tickets), but generally I find smaller venues to be the most satisfying to see live music. Plus, this is going to be more obscure or early-career acts so you get to be hipper than thou when you see them.
When I was a teenager in the 90's I managed to score tickets to what was probably one of Pink Floyd's last tours. If I recall correctly, a ticket cost $40, which was pretty steep for a kid with only a paper route. Still, I was very excited--it was my first concert without my parents--but the experience was terrible.<p>The show was in a stadium. The sound was terrible. Everyone around me was smoking pot. I was so far away that the musicians were barely visible. The only consolation was that Pink Floyd had a great lights show and a big movie screen behind them showing flying pigs and things like that.<p>I went to one more stadium show after that--The Smashing Pumpkins and Garbage--and it was somehow worse. The sound was deafening but also unintelligible.<p>There are many musicians I would love to see, but the big show experience is awful. Fortunately, I have since seen many, many shows in smaller venues. I fondly remember watching Low play in a candlelit (!!) venue with audience members sitting/laying (!!!) on the floor. Way, way better, and definitely hipper than thou.
> deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it<p>I've reached a similar conclusion. I've broken my rule a few times, but just about all of them just reinforced my belief in my rule.<p>Here I tend to aim for venues where the tickets are $25-35. I'll order a couple and invite someone. I've had some of my best concert experiences this way, surpassing the large concerts I've been to by orders of magnitude.<p>I also find that in most cases, the sound is much better at smaller venues. That is, there are good spots and bad spots, but you can easily move around to a good spot and then it's really good. The large 2000+ venues I've been to have never had good sound, just decent at best.
There’s always risks with putting on a show - and the financial risks of underselling may be on the band.
ffs, artists aren’t in control of these prices or venues. LiveNation is. Remember LiveNation? Yeah, those assholes.
Livenation provides a useful role as a punching bag to the most popular artists. They need to seem accessible to the commoners, but their demand is so high, they can earn more money catering only to those willing to pay them the most.